Home Group Limited (202115852)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202115852
Home Group Limited
15 May 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
1. The complaint is about:
a. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
b. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
3. The resident is an assured tenant who lives at the property with 6 family members, including 2 adult children, and 4 children and grandchildren ranging in age from a baby to 10 years old. The resident suffers from long covid and asthma. The family members also have a range of vulnerabilities, including asthma, autism, ADHD and learning disability. The property is a 3 bedroom end of terrace house.
4. In August 2021, the resident advised the landlord that there was a mouse infestation in her property. The landlord attended the property to identify any access points and block them in early October 2021. It said this was the first available appointment it had.
5. Shortly after this work was carried out, the resident complained to the landlord that not all the holes in the property had been blocked. She asked for her front and back doors to be replaced as mice were getting in through gaps under them. She said that a broken drain opposite her property was the main cause of the infestation and that this was reported to the landlord 3 years previously but had never been fixed. She also complained about the general condition of the estate and the standard of work carried out in communal areas. The landlord acknowledged this as a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 1).
6. In November 2021, the landlord carried out an estate inspection. It identified the drain as the cause of the mouse infestation in the resident’s property. It raised this as a repair job with its contractors at the end of January 2022.
7. The resident continued to report to the landlord that there were significant numbers of mice getting into her home. She sought advice from the local authority environmental health team who advised her to lay out traps and keep the property clean. In February 2022, the landlord inspected the property and ordered a new back door. At this visit the resident asked the landlord to attend to holes within the property. It said it would raise this with its surveyor.
8. The back door was fitted in March 2022. The resident then complained to the landlord in April 2022 that the front door had not yet been replaced. She also raised the same complaints made the previous October regarding the landlord’s failure to fully resolve the ongoing mouse infestation, the broken drain, and estate maintenance. She explained the significant impact this was having on her and her family, their enjoyment of the property, and their mental and physical health.
9. The landlord had not issued a formal written response to Complaint 1. It said this was closed due to “no contact.” It therefore provided a stage 1 response in April 2022 following the resident’s further complaint (Complaint 2). It said in the response:
a. Front door – the landlord thought it had ordered the door in March 2022, but it had not. It apologised and said it was chasing this as a matter of priority. However, due to resourcing issues, routine repairs such as this were taking up to 12 weeks to complete.
b. Broken external drain – the repair had not yet been carried out due to issues with sub-contractors. The landlord apologised and said the drain would be attended to as soon as possible.
c. Mouse infestation – the landlord’s surveyor did not feel an inspection was necessary as work orders had been raised for the doors and drain.
10. By mid-May 2022, the resident was continuing to catch mice in her property. She advised the landlord she had caught approximately 60 since she initially reported the problem the previous August. She emphasised the significant impact this was having on her and her family. She said that they were unable to use the kitchen or living room such was the extent of the mouse activity and resultant droppings. She complained that her kitchen and other household items had been damaged. She said that despite the landlord attending her property 3 times to replace the front door, each time it brought the wrong door. Therefore, the door was not replaced until early May. Some holes in the property were still to be filled in and the estate drain had not been fully fixed. She asked the landlord to review her complaint and to consider decanting the family until the mouse infestation and all associated repairs had been fully resolved. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
11. Throughout the 4 month period between May and September, the landlord was in frequent communication with the resident as it carried out its stage 2 investigation. It inspected the property on 31 May 2022. On 16 June 2022, it issued an initial stage 2 complaint response letter. It said that following the inspection, it had agreed to:
a. Block the access points in the property.
b. Repair the external drain.
c. Rectify the damage caused by pests in the kitchen.
d. Complete pest control in the property.
e. Liaise with the local authority regarding pest control and the condition of the estate grounds, as some areas were owned by it rather than the landlord.
12. The landlord advised that it was exploring the potential of a decant while the works to block access points and repair damage to the kitchen took place. It apologised that it was unable to confirm when the work would be starting. It was still liaising with the various contractors involved and the local authority to agree the extent of the work required and to line up dates. It committed to keep the resident updated and said that it would issue a further and final stage 2 complaint response once the outstanding actions had been completed. It also provided the resident with details of its insurers should she wish to make a claim for personal injury, financial loss or damaged items.
13. The following week the landlord attended the property to fill in any visible holes. Pest control contractors then carried out a survey to identify any remaining entry points and to advise the landlord on the best course of treatment. Further to this, the landlord advised the resident that the pest control treatment would start on 14 July 2022. It was expected there would be noticeably less mouse activity after this, and there would then be 2 further treatments 7-10 days apart and disinfectant treatment. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the contractor’s report. It advised the resident that the contractor had been unable to inspect all the property due to ‘clutter.’ The landlord reminded the resident that it was vital that she kept the property clean to minimise any mouse activity.
14. The landlord told the resident that a decant would take place while the kitchen works, scheduled to start on 19 July 2022, were ongoing. Accordingly, the resident and her family were moved to another property between 15 July and 22 July to enable the works to take place.
15. On 1 August 2022, having returned to the property following completion of the repair works, the resident reported a leak in the kitchen. The landlord attended to this 28 hours after the resident’s initial report.
16. On 22 September 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 ‘complaint outcome’ letter. It summarised the action it had undertaken in relation to pest control and to improve estate maintenance. This included liaising with the local authority in relation to land it owned to ask that it cut back hedges and deal with fly tipping. The landlord outlined further actions it would undertake, including:
a. Broken external drain – although the landlord had attended to this during the summer, the resident advised there was still rodent activity around it. The landlord said it would carry out further works to resolve this.
b. Pest control – the resident advised that there remained some points still to be blocked, so the landlord said it had raised a works request for these to be attended to.
17. The landlord identified and apologised for various failings in its handling of the pest control complaint and associated repairs, including delays in replacing the external doors and the delay in responding to the kitchen leak. It offered the resident compensation of £950 for these failings, plus £350 for a deep clean of the property and £135 to reimburse the resident for a mini fridge that she purchased due to not being able to use her kitchen. The landlord had discussed and agreed the compensation offer with the resident prior to the stage 2 outcome letter being issued, therefore it arranged for the total amount of £1,435 to be transferred to her account. The resident confirmed to the landlord that she would also raise an insurance claim relating to personal injury, financial loss and damaged items.
18. Despite pest control treatment having been carried out, the resident continued to report there were mice in her house. The landlord inspected the property in February and March 2023 and raised concerns with the resident about cleanliness, advising her that the problem would return if the property was not kept clean. On 27 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that within the past week she had caught 6 mice in bedrooms and the living room and had found 5 new holes in bedrooms. The landlord contacted environmental health and arranged for its pest control contractor to carry out an inspection. The inspection took place on 6 April 2023. The contractor reported that it found no evidence of recent mouse activity and that it was unable to inspect the holes in bedrooms as there was large furniture in the way. The contractor noted that the garden required maintenance and was in “perfect condition for rats or mice to breed.” It advised the landlord that although no recent mouse activity had been detected, it would be prudent to carry out a treatment plan in the kitchen and loft area. Following this, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would carry out further pest control treatment. It asked the resident to clean the inside of the property and clear the garden.
19. The landlord carried out the further pest control treatment in May 2023. However, the resident reported after this that there were still mice in her property. The landlord therefore asked a different pest control contractor to inspect the property in June 2023. The inspection took place in July 2023 and the contractor recommended further pest control treatment but said that first the garden should be cleared as the overgrown conditions and various items in it were providing ideal harbourage. The contractor also said that although the broken drain in the estate may have been attracting rats, this was not connected with the mice in the property. Following this, the landlord updated the resident and asked her to clear the garden in order that the treatment could proceed.
20. The landlord remained in regular contact with the resident throughout the summer months. In September 2023, the landlord was satisfied the garden had been sufficiently cleared for the pest control treatment to proceed. It advised the resident that this would be the last treatment it would pay for, “as she has previously had at least two other courses of treatment throughout her property which should be the responsibility of the customer to complete.”
21. Between 20 September 2023 and 8 November 2023, 8 pest control visits took place. Radar units were put in place to catch any mice, disinfectant was sprayed throughout the property, and entry points were identified and blocked. The landlord kept the resident regularly updated on the progress of the treatment. It expressed concern that the actions it had assigned to her in terms of cleaning had not been carried out. It reminded her that cleaning was her responsibility and urged her to carry it out so that the treatment would be effective.
22. Unconnected to the pest control treatment, but of relevance to this investigation, the resident raised several repair issues with the landlord in August 2023, including damage to flooring caused by the leak the previous year, a hole in a back bedroom window frame and a broken radiator in the same room. When the landlord inspected the property in September 2023, it recorded that joinery repairs were required to kitchen cupboards, two internal doors and a window frame. The landlord raised these with its maintenance team and in October 2023 it carried out the repairs to the cupboards and one of the internal doors.
23. On 26 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged receipt of a formal complaint from the resident about its handling of the pest infestation and the way she was spoken to by its staff (Complaint 3). In its initial stage 1 response on 1 November 2023, the landlord said that although the pest control treatment had ended, it had left radar units in the property which would be checked by technicians at set intervals. It reminded the resident that she was required to keep the garden clear and the house clean in order to see any improvements following the pest control treatment. The landlord said it was sorry if it had come across as uncaring or unsympathetic in its dealings with the resident. It advised that this was not its intention as it had done “everything possible” to help the resident through a difficult situation. It said that as some actions still needed to be completed, it would not yet close the complaint.
24. Further correspondence between the landlord and the resident followed the stage 1 response. The resident reported that there was still mouse activity in the house, that they were chewing through clothes and attacking the children. She also complained that some of the repair jobs had not yet been completed. The landlord issued a stage 1 ‘complaint outcome’ letter to Complaint 3 on 20 November 2023. It said:
a. Pest control – it had “undertaken robust action to try to eradicate the mice,” but it understood from the resident’s latest communications the situation had escalated. The landlord apologised for the distress this caused and said it would continue to work with the pest control team to ensure the issue was resolved.
b. Repairs – all the repairs identified in the landlord’s September 2023 inspection had now been completed. The resident had asked for one of the damaged internal doors to be replaced, but the landlord had instead repaired it. It said that if she wished the landlord to replace the door, she would be charged for the cost.
25. The resident was not happy with the response and asked to escalate the complaint. She said she wanted a resolution to the mouse problem and for the internal door to be replaced. The landlord acknowledged this as a stage 2 request.
26. During December 2023, the landlord continued to correspond with the resident. She remained unhappy with the effectiveness of the pest control treatment. She also reported that the room with the broken radiator and hole in the window frame was very cold. She said this was the room in which a baby, a 2 year old and an adult with asthma slept. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to the radiator on 15 December 2023 and the window on 19 December 2023.
27. The contractor reported that it was unable to gain access on 15 December to replace the radiator. However, the resident disputed this as she said her daughter was at home all day and no one came. She complained about this to the landlord on 10 January 2024. She also complained that the work carried out to repair the hole in the window frame on 19 December was “makeshift”. She said that the hole was covered, but the covering fell off straight away, and the contractor told her the whole window would need to be replaced. She raised concern that the weather was due to be below freezing in the coming weeks. She also complained that the flooring damaged by the leak had not yet been replaced, and that joinery repairs she had previously raised with the landlord had not yet been attended to. These included an internal door, an external door lock, a bath panel, and kitchen plinths and skirting boards. She said she had previously reported there was a hole in the roof that was allowing mice in, but that it had not yet been looked at by the landlord. The landlord incorporated its reply to all these issues into its stage 2 complaint response to Complaint 3 which it was preparing to issue later that day (10 January 2024).
28. In the stage 2 response to Complaint 3, the landlord said:
a. Pest control – the last scheduled treatment took place on 8 November 2023. Radar units that had been left in the property had detected no activity. The resident had been given a list of cleaning actions she could take to mitigate the problem. The landlord was checking with the relevant operational team as to what further action could be taken in relation to the resident’s report there was a hole in the roof.
b. Radiator repair – the landlord acknowledged that the resident and contractor’s account of the missed appointment was in conflict. A new repair job had been raised.
c. Window frame – the landlord had sought a copy of the job report and an update from the contractor on replacing the frame.
d. Joinery repairs – a job had been raised for these.
29. The landlord apologised for the “slow progress” on the resident’s case. It said that provided the resident agreed, it would keep the complaint open until all the outstanding issues were resolved and it was able to provide its full and final stage 2 response. However, it also said that the resident could at this stage refer the complaint to the Ombudsman if she wished.
30. The resident had already been in contact with the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of Complaint 1 and its response to Complaint 2. She contacted the Ombudsman again following receipt of the response to Complaint 3 and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the mouse infestation and its delays in carrying out repairs.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
31. The resident’s primary complaint concerns a mouse infestation. As outlined above, the resident formally complained about this on 3 occasions. The first time was in October 2021 (Complaint 1), but the landlord did not address this through the internal complaints process. The next 2 complaints were progressed through the complaints process between April and September 2022 (Complaint 2) and October 2023 and January 2024 (Complaint 3). The resident referred the landlord’s handling of all 3 complaints to the Ombudsman, therefore they have all been assessed during this investigation. When dealing with Complaint 3, the landlord included in its response some repair issues raised by the resident. These have been included within the scope of this investigation as the resident indicated to us that she was not content with the landlord’s response.
32. There were also other issues raised during the complaint processes, including complaints about a member of staff, about a management transfer request, and about a charge for a gas safety inspection. The detail of these complaints and the landlord’s response have been excluded from this report as they are not the subject of this complaint investigation.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation
33. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to ensure that properties are fit for human habitation on the first day of a tenancy and that they remain fit throughout the tenancy. Pest infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should therefore ensure that any pest issues arising in a property are addressed so that they do not become so significant they render a property unfit for human habitation. This may be achieved by the landlord taking action itself, which it would be required to do if the problem is caused by a repair obligation of the landlord, or by enforcing tenancy obligations to ensure the tenant takes action where appropriate.
34. The landlord’s policies appropriately recognise this position. Its ‘Property Management Policy’ sets out a series of standards that the landlord will abide by. The first standard is that it will ensure properties are fit for human habitation. The landlord’s ‘Tenancy Handbook’ provides that any infestations in communal areas, or that have happened due to structural issues in properties such as gaps or cracks in the wall or floors, will be the responsibility of the landlord to fix. It states that emergency repairs will be attended to within 6 hours, with the landlord aiming to complete them within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 14 days. The Handbook also provides advice to residents on how to prevent pest infestations and explains that it is their responsibility to keep their properties clean and tidy.
35. There were multiple failings in the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of mice in her property. After she reported the mice in August 2021, it was over a month before the landlord’s contractors attended the property. Given the extent of the problem reported and the fact there were young children living in the house, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not carry out a full survey of the property at this time to ensure all entry points and any other underlying causes of the problem had been identified. While it is noted that the contractor covered up some of the holes, the evidence does not suggest that a proportionate level of inspection was undertaken. It was only after the resident complained in October 2021 that the landlord carried out a thorough inspection of the property and wider estate, although even this inspection was delayed as it did not take place until 6 weeks after the complaint.
36. At the November 2021 inspection, the landlord identified a broken drain on the estate as a source of the mouse infestation, yet it took the landlord a further 2 months before it raised a works request with its contractor to fix this. Due to resourcing issues with a sub-contractor, the work was not carried out until April or May 2022. It would appear that this was not a full repair, or the issue resurfaced shortly after, as the landlord later said in June 2022 that it would carry out further repair work to it. Although a later pest control report in 2023 stated that the mouse problem in the property was not believed to be connected to the drain, this was not relevant in 2022. At that point in time, the landlord believed the mouse problem was due to the drain. The significant delay in attending to this repair was therefore unreasonable.
37. The landlord also accepted in November 2021 that gaps in the front and back door to the property were allowing mice entry, yet it took 3 months to replace the back door and 6 months to replace the front door. The landlord departed from the repair timeframes set out in its policy, and the evidence does not suggest that these delays were unavoidable. It also indicated that the landlord was not effectively managing its contract with the contractors, who the resident reported arrived at her property on 3 occasions with the wrong front door.
38. Up until May 2022, the landlord simply treated the drain and doors as repair issues. It was unreasonable that it did not consider whether it should carry out pest control treatment much sooner than this. It was only once Complaint 2 was elevated to stage 2 of the complaint process that the landlord appears to have recognised the full extent of its responsibilities. On 31 May 2022 it stated that it “agreed the maintenance failures have contributed to her difficulties of mice in [the resident’s] house.” From this point the landlord began to take appropriate action. It liaised with the local authority’s environmental health team, and it instructed a pest control contractor to survey the property. It accepted and followed the contractor’s recommendations and paid for a course of pest control treatment.
39. The landlord recognised all the above failings in its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 issued in September 2022. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it apologised, and it explained the action it had already taken and would take going forward to remedy the situation. In offering the resident compensation, the landlord appropriately separated out each identified delay and service failing and offered the resident the highest amount of compensation available for each in line with its compensation guidelines. It discussed the compensation offer in advance with the resident before including it in the stage 2 response. As a result of these discussions, the landlord included additional compensation to cover the cost of a deep clean and a mini fridge. This demonstrated that the landlord was listening to the resident and taking steps to put things right. The overall amount offered by the landlord of £1,435 on account of its failings in responding to the mouse infestation was a fair and reasonable offer. It was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which sets out a range of £600-£1,000 where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on a resident.
40. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for damage to property, financial losses, or for personal injury. Such matters are more appropriately determined by a court, tribunal, or other procedure such as via an insurance claim. In this case, the landlord appropriately referred the resident to its insurers. The resident made a claim and a ‘without prejudice’ offer of £5,500 was made in December 2023 as “compensation for damaged belongings as well as for distress, inconvenience and loss of use.” It is understood that the insurance claim remains open, however, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the reasonableness or otherwise of the offer.
41. After the landlord issued its stage 2 response in September 2022, it remained in regular contact with the resident. In March 2023, following the resident’s reports that mice had returned to the property, the landlord appropriately liaised with the local authority’s environmental health team and instructed its pest control contractors to inspect the property. It actioned the recommendations from the inspection, which included carrying out a course of pest control treatment. When the problem was not resolved by June 2023, the landlord instructed a different pest control company and carried out a further course of pest control treatment. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the findings and advice of professional pest control contractors and environmental health when determining what action to take.
42. On each occasion treatment was carried out, the landlord shared the pest control inspection reports with the resident. The landlord highlighted to the resident that the pest controllers had said each time that the overgrown garden provided “perfect conditions for rats or mice to breed” and that the property would need to be cleaned and kept clean for the treatment to be effective. The landlord appropriately reminded the resident on a number of occasions that the cleaning of the property and clearing of the garden were her responsibility. It made its expectations clear by providing her with a list setting out the specific cleaning actions to be undertaken. It carried out inspections to oversee the actions were carried out and communicated with the resident where it identified that further cleaning was required. When the resident indicated she would be unable to clear the garden herself, the landlord offered to arrange for a contractor to clear it for her, albeit the cost would be charged to the resident’s account. Although the resident did not avail of this offer, the landlord was fair in its actions and considerate of the resident’s circumstances.
43. The resident asked the landlord on several occasions during 2022 and 2023 to decant her and her family while pest control treatment was ongoing. She complained that she was unable to use the downstairs of the property due to the mice, that the property was not habitable and that it was damaging the mental and physical health of her and her family. The landlord however only agreed to one temporary decant for a week in July 2022. In reaching this decision, the landlord applied its policy which provides that decants may take place where one of the following apply:
a. Works will cause disruption in a property and it is not reasonable to expect the resident to live there while they are ongoing.
b. An emergency situation has arisen and the property is no longer habitable or it is unsafe for the resident to remain there.
44. The landlord advised the resident that it agreed the decant in July 2022 on the grounds that the kitchen would be out of service while it was being repaired, rather than due to the pest control treatment that was ongoing at that time. This was because the pest control contractor had advised the landlord that it was safe for the resident and her family to remain living in the property while the treatment was carried out. The landlord explained this to the resident. It also advised her that the family should use the downstairs of the property as human activity would help deter mice.
45. In April 2023 the landlord sought further advice from its pest control contractors about the condition of the property. The contractor advised, ““based on the evidence presented on my visit I see no reason why the tenants cannot live at this property in a safe hygienic manner, with a normal cleaning programme in place carried out by themselves for normal everyday living.” The landlord also appropriately notified environmental health in 2022 and again in 2023 when the resident reported mice were continuing to get into the property. Environmental health did not indicate that the property was not fit for human habitation.
46. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of both the pest controllers and environmental health in determining that the property remained habitable and that a decant was not required due to the pest problem. The landlord explained this to the resident and regularly inspected the property throughout 2023 to keep the condition of it under review. As outlined above, it provided advice to the resident about the cleaning of the property and appropriately reminded her of her responsibilities. The pest controller confirmed at its final visit in November 2023 that none of the 12 radar units left in the property had been activated.
47. The Ombudsman finds that overall, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress in relation to its response to reports of a mouse infestation. It is recognised that the resident and her family have suffered a great deal of distress and inconvenience due to the mice in her property. The resident has provided accounts to the landlord and to the Ombudsman of the impact the mice have had on their mental and physical health. However, as outlined above and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord recognised its failings in its response to Complaint 2 in September 2022 and took steps to put things right. It apologised, offered an appropriate level of compensation for failures in service, distress and inconvenience. It advised the resident how she could make an insurance claim if she wished to seek compensation for property damage, financial loss or personal injury.
48. Following the landlord’s final response to Complaint 2, it continued to seek advice at appropriate intervals from pest control specialists and environmental health. It reasonably accepted and acted upon the recommendations of those experts. The landlord explained this to the resident in its responses to Complaint 3 and also in its communications with her outside the formal complaint process. It provided her with regular updates when the pest control treatments were being carried out, often following up phone calls with emails summarising the main issues discussed. It also continued to appropriately discuss with the resident the important role she had to play in ensuring the pest control treatment was effective.
49. It is noted that since the stage 2 response to Complaint 3 was issued in January 2024, the landlord has continued to discuss the matter with the resident and it issued a stage 2 ‘complaint outcome’ letter on 7 May 2024. As outlined above, the landlord indicated that it would not close the complaint when issuing its stage 2 response in January given there remained a number of outstanding actions for it to complete. However, the resident chose to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman following receipt of the initial stage 2 response, as she was entitled to do, rather than await a further response. Within the May 2024 letter, the landlord advised the resident that the pest control treatment had been arranged by the landlord as “an exception” and that pest control is the resident’s responsibility. It said it would not be taking any further action in relation to the resident’s recent reports that she could hear mouse activity in the loft space.
50. The Ombudsman reminds the landlord that pest control is not always a resident’s responsibility as this depends on a range of factors, including whether there are repair issues involved. The landlord must always oversee that a property remains fit for human habitation. Given this, it would be reasonable for the landlord to, as a minimum, inspect the loft area if it has not already done so to ensure that there are no issues such as holes in the roof or flooring that is enabling pests to enter the property. If the resident is not content with the landlord’s response to her reports of mice in the loft from the date of the May 2024 letter onwards, she may wish to raise a further complaint, and ultimately refer the matter to the Ombudsman if it exhausts the internal complaint process. Therefore, while the Ombudsman is satisfied the resident has been offered reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the mouse infestation, it is recommended that the landlord continues to support the resident should she report any further mice activity in the property. It should be mindful of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household and it should take action that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s handling of repairs
51. The landlord’s ‘Tenancy Handbook’ identifies the different types of repair issues that might arise in a property and explains who is responsible for these. It sets out that as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of properties, as well as to installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics. The Handbook provides that where an emergency repair for the landlord arises, it must be attended to within 6 hours, with the aim that the repair is then completed within 24 hours. The Handbook states that the landlord will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 14 days.
52. When raising complaints with the landlord about its handling of the mouse infestation, the resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of various repair issues. The issues raised during Complaint 2 included repairs to holes in the walls of the property, a front and back door replacement, and a broken drain on the estate. In the stage 1 response issued in April 2022, the landlord apologised for the delays in carrying out these repairs. It said that as a result of complaints such as this, it was reviewing its works contract. In the stage 2 response issued in September 2022, the landlord apologised again for the delays, offered compensation, and set out the further action it would take to ensure all the repairs were completed. As outlined above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the response to Complaint 2 was appropriate and that the level of compensation offered for all the failings identified was reasonable.
53. Additional complaints regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs were raised by the resident as part of Complaint 3. At the time of the stage 2 response in January 2024, the radiator, window and minor joinery repairs were still to be completed by the landlord. However, since then, the repairs have been attended to. The landlord summarised the action it had taken in relation to each repair in its stage 2 ‘complaint outcome’ letter on 7 May 2024 as follows:
a. Bedroom radiator – there were conflicting accounts between the contractor and the resident as to whether the contractor attended the property to repair the radiator in December 2023. Following 2 further attempts by the contractor to access the property in January 2024, the radiator was repaired on 16 February 2024.
b. Bedroom window – the resident said that the contractor advised her in December 2023 that the hole in the window could not be fixed and the whole window would need replaced. The landlord said in its January 2024 stage 2 response it would review the contractor’s report. In the May 2024 letter, the landlord said the contractor had clarified the issue was cosmetic, was not causing a draught in the room, and therefore the whole window would not be replaced. The job remained open as the contractor had been unable to source a replacement part.
c. Joinery repairs – works to repair the bath panel, door lock, and plinths and skirting boards were carried out in February 2024. Further works to the plinths and skirting boards were booked for April 2024, but were rescheduled at the resident’s request and were booked for May 2024. The landlord had carried out a repair to the hinges of an internal door but assessed that the damage was not caused by wear and tear. As such, any repair to it would be charged to the resident.
d. Downstairs flooring – the flooring was damaged by the leak in the property in August 2022. The landlord initially advised the resident that it was her responsibility to replace it. She periodically asked the landlord to review this position, including in December 2023 during the stage 2 complaint investigation. The landlord subsequently advised her in April 2024 that she could add a claim for the flooring to her ongoing insurance claim. The landlord confirmed this in the May 2024 letter.
54. Given that all the above repair jobs were raised by the resident during the latter half of 2023, but most were not resolved until February 2024 or later, it is evident that the time taken to complete the work exceeded the 28 day target as per the landlord’s policy. Of particular concern is the delay in repairing the radiator. The resident had reported it was not working as early as August 2023. The radiator was in a room shared by a baby, a toddler, and an adult with asthma. The resident made clear her concerns about the temperature of the room during the winter. There is no evidence that the landlord enquired whether it could support the resident by providing temporary heat solutions. The landlord unreasonably failed to recognise the vulnerabilities within the household and prioritise the repair accordingly.
55. When initially informing the resident that she was responsible for replacing the floor, the landlord did not appear to consider whether its delay in responding to the leak had potentially exacerbated the damage. As per the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Complaints Involving Insurance Issues’, landlords should always consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s property or belongings. The guidance states that if a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy as all claims made on a policy may affect the resident’s future premium and/or require them to pay an excess.
56. The landlord also does not appear to have considered that contents insurance does not usually cover damage to hard flooring that is stuck to the ground. Such claims would normally be covered by buildings insurance which is the landlord’s responsibility to provide. It was therefore not reasonable that it took from August 2022 when the damage occurred, until April 2024, before the landlord advised that the resident could submit a claim through its insurers for the flooring. This was despite the resident having requested the landlord reconsider its position on several occasions previously.
57. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord acknowledged there had been failings on its part in its May 2024 letter. It offered the resident £1,000 compensation, including for the delays in carrying out the repairs, the disruption caused to the resident due to multiple visits to the property, and for the distress and upset caused to the resident as a result. It appropriately referred her to its insurers for the flooring. Given that the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out a range of £600-£1,000 where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on a resident, the landlord’s offer was fair and reasonable.
58. As the May 2024 letter was issued by the landlord after the complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman, it cannot be deemed to have provided ‘reasonable redress’ in accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme. That finding can only be made if redress is provided prior to a complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman. Additionally, the response does not set out any learning that the landlord will take from its failings in relation to repairs as outlined in this report. The finding of maladministration therefore stands. However, rather than make a separate compensation order, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the £1,000 offered by the landlord fairly compensates for the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the maladministration. The landlord should therefore proceed to pay the £1,000 to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling
59. When the resident raised Complaint 1 in October 2021, the landlord appropriately recorded this as a formal complaint about its handling of a mouse infestation. The landlord rang the resident to discuss the various issues giving rise to the complaint. It then sent her an acknowledgement letter defining each ground of complaint. It appears from the evidence provided that the landlord had some limited communication with the resident in the months that followed, including during property inspections in November 2021 and February 2022. However, it never formally issued a stage 1 written response to the complaint. It was only when Complaint 2 was made in April 2022 that the landlord issued a stage 1 response. In that response it said that it had closed Complaint 1 due to “no contact”. No further explanation was provided for this. There were no grounds within the landlord’s complaints policy or within the Code for closing a complaint down due to “no contact” from a resident. There was no indication the resident asked to withdraw the complaint. The failure to respond to Complaint 1 was therefore unreasonable, a failure to adhere to policy and not compliant with the Code.
60. The Code provides that when a complaint is logged, landlords should respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord complied with these timeframes when issuing the responses to Complaint 2 and Complaint 3. However, as actions remained outstanding for the landlord to complete when issuing those responses, it proposed each time that it would keep the complaint open and issue a final response once the actions were complete. It was good practice that the landlord did not delay issuing a response pending completion of all actions. When issuing the initial stage 2 responses, the landlord made clear both times that the resident could refer the matter to the Ombudsman without awaiting the final stage 2 response. This was a reasonable approach and in keeping with the Code.
61. It is noted that in 2022 the landlord’s complaints policy did not specifically set out the timeframes within which responses would be provided and it did not detail the two stage complaint process. Instead, it simply stated that the landlord would respond in line with the “appropriate Ombudsman Services.” The complaints policy was however updated in July 2023 to include information on the timeframes and the two stage process. The landlord may wish to consider including even more detail within the policy specific to housing complaints when it carries out its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s new Code during 2024.
62. Overall, although the landlord demonstrated some good practice in its complaint responses, its failure to respond to the complaint about the mouse infestation when it was first raised in October 2021 amounts to maladministration. It was through the formal complaint process that the landlord acknowledged its failures in relation to this issue. It then carried out pest control treatment and completed associated repairs such as replacing the external doors. Had the landlord’s first response to the complaint been in October 2021, rather than in April 2022, these actions may have taken place at least 6 months sooner. The landlord’s delay in taking appropriate action had a direct and significant impact on the resident and her family as it prolonged the time they were living with the untreated infestation. Given this, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £300 for the failure in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Determination
63. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs.
65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
66. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
a. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
b. Pay the resident the compensation of £1,000 offered in its letter of 7 May 2024.
c. Pay the resident an additional £300 compensation for the complaint handling failure in 2021.
Recommendation
67. It is recommended that the landlord continues to support the resident should she report any further mice activity in the property. In doing so, it should be cognisant of its responsibilities to carry out repairs promptly and to oversee that the property remains fit for human habitation. It should be mindful of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household and it should take action that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.