Hyde Housing Association Limited (202325559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325559

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 October 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about loft insulation.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived with her daughter in the property, a 2-bed house, since June 2022.
The resident has said that she is disabled and has mobility issues. The landlord is aware of her disabilities.
On 8 May 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. The landlord had removed the loft insulation in November 2022 due to “contamination” by rodents.
2. No insulation had been in place since. The property was “freezing”, and this was increasing her heating costs.
3. In February 2023 it had carried out pest proofing work but this had not worked and there were still rodents in the loft.
4. She had contacted the landlord in March 2023 to ask it to re-install insulation and fill holes to prevent rodent access. It had told her it had closed the pest control case and it would not install new insulation.
Around the same time as the resident made her stage 1 complaint, she also contacted the local authority and raised a complaint under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990).
On 25 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it needed more time to investigate her complaint. It said it hoped to provide a full response by 14 June 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2023. It said:
1. It could see the outstanding repairs and pest control issues had been “a long-drawn-out process”. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience this had caused.
2. In line with its complaints policy it could only investigate events which had occurred up to 6 months prior to the complaint. It did however acknowledge that she had been contacting it about the issue “prior to that period”.
3. It was “clear” it should have completed the repairs and eradicated the mice “much sooner”.
4. Its records showed that following a disrepair claim made by the resident in September 2022 it had attended twice to treat the property for mice. It had however “failed to arrange for the holes to be blocked and insulation to be re-laid”.
5. It upheld her complaint and offered £200 compensation:
  1. £50 for complaint handling failures.
  2. £50 for delay in service delivery.
  3. £50 for distress and inconvenience.
  4. £50 for “customer effort”.
6. It had arranged for its pest control contractor to attend on 9 June 2023 for a “first visit to treat mice”. It would return on 30 June 2023 for a further visit.
7. It would attend on 11 July 2023 to block holes in the kitchen and downstairs WC to prevent the mice entering the property.
8. It would re-install the loft insulation after it had completed the pest proofing works.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 21 September 2023. She said:
1. There was still “major” rodent activity in the property.
2. The rodents were leaving droppings, “gnawing holes into clothing”, and chewing the bedroom and bathroom doors.
3. She was now “afraid” in her property but could not leave to stay with family due to her disability.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 September 2023. It said:
1. It had not failed in the service it had provided and it did not uphold her stage 2 complaint.
2. The resident had said that it had not completed the works raised in response to her stage 1 complaint. Its records showed its pest control team had “completed eradication of the rodents” and that it had replaced the insulation in July 2023.
The resident contacted this Service following the landlord’s final complaint response. She said she was still experiencing rodent activity in the property.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS; be in reasonable state of repair; have reasonably modern facilities; and provide reasonable thermal comfort.
Pest infestations are a category of prescribed hazard under the HHSRS. Landlords should therefore ensure that it addresses any pest issues arising in a property so that they do not become so significant they render a property unfit for human habitation.
The tenancy agreement is silent on pest control. The landlord however has a pest control procedure which states:
1. Pests can be both a public health issue and a nuisance. They can affect a resident’s use and enjoyment of their home.
2. Where possible it will block access points which pests have used to enter the property to prevent further entry.
3. It will contact the resident within 7 days of the target treatment completion date to confirm that its contractor has completed the treatment. If it has been completed successfully the case will be closed.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook says it will attend to “non-urgent” repairs within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
During our investigation we have found that several records key to assessing the landlord’s handling of rodents in the property have not been provided. These records included:
1. Evidence of pest control visits between November 2022 and September 2023.
2. Works orders or repair logs showing when it completed loft insulation works.
Despite requesting these documents from the landlord it has not provided them. It is not clear whether this is because the landlord has not kept these records or has done so but failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing.
Our knowledge and information management (KIM) Spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlord, which assists it in fulfilling its repair and other obligations. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident and ultimately the Ombudsman that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations. Complete and correct records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property. This enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed effectively.
The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has affected our investigation into its handling of the substantive issues of complaint. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on KIM. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Response to the resident’s reports of rodents inside the property.

We acknowledge that the resident has said that prior to her stage 1 complaint she had been reporting issues with rodents in her loft for a long period. The resident’s comments are not disputed. The landlord has not provided contact or repair logs that show any reports by the resident prior to the complaint or any works that it completed in response. As such, it is not possible to ascertain what specific concerns were reported by the resident, and when. It is clear however from the landlord’s communications and its complaint responses that the resident had indeed been reporting rodents from at least September 2022.
The resident said in her stage 1 complaint the landlord had told her in March 2023 that it had closed the pest control case. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will contact a resident within 7 days of completion of pest control treatment to confirm it has been completed before closing the case. We have not been provided with evidence which demonstrates that the landlord complied with its policy. This was inappropriate.
11 days after the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord raised a job for its pest control contractor to attend to investigate the reports of rodents in the loft. It is unclear why it did not raise these works sooner. We accept that this is within the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s policy for routine repairs. Considering however the matter was subject for a formal complaint, and had been a longstanding issue, we would reasonably expect it to have done so with more urgency.
On 9 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended for a first visit to treat the property for mice.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had been contacting it about issues with rodents in the property since September 2022. It accepted that it had been a “long-drawn-out process” and that it should have resolved the issues “much sooner”.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor would attend again on 30 June 2023 for a further pest control visit. It said it would then block the holes being used by the rodents on 11 July 2023. It has not provided any evidence to show that these visits took place. That it has not done so is a failing.
In September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint as she said she continued to experience rodent activity. The landlord stated within its response that its pest control team had “completed eradication of the rodents”. Again we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident following the treatment in line with its policy. This was inappropriate.
In her stage 2 complaint the resident clearly stated that rodents were causing damage to the property and her belongings. She also expressed that she was “afraid” in her property but was unable to stay elsewhere due to her disability. The evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience described by the resident, which would understandably have been perceived as being uncaring or unsympathetic. Nor has it provided any evidence to show what action if any it took in relation to reports rodent activity between June 2023 and February 2024. We cannot therefore determine that its response to the issue was reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord has however provided evidence that shows that between February 2024 and June 2024 its pest control contractor attended the property on 3 occasions to complete treatment for mice. The evidence also shows some of the treatments during this period were delayed by difficulties contacting the resident and that she had also found it necessary to reschedule appointments owing to medical issues. We do not consider that either party could reasonably have prevented these delays.
It is noted that at the time the complaint was duly made to this Service the resident continued to report issues with rodents in the property. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it continued to attend to treat the issue. While this was appropriate, we have found that the landlord’s response to the issue as a whole was inappropriate.
Overall, the landlord has failed to:
1. Adhere to its own pest control policy by confirming with the resident that pest control treatment was complete before closing the case.
2. Address all the issues raised in the complaint.
3. Demonstrate what action it took prior to May 2023 to address reports of rodents.
4. Demonstrate what action it took between June 2023 and February 2024 to address reports of rodents.
We therefore find that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodents inside the property.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about loft insulation.

It is not in dispute that the landlord removed the resident’s loft insulation due to contamination by rodents. However, the date that the insulation was removed is unclear from the evidence that is available.
The resident in her stage 1 complaint has said that the landlord removed the insulation in November 2022. As the landlord has not refuted this, we have based our assessments on this timeframe.
The resident has stated that she raised these concerns with the landlord prior to her stage 1 complaint. As the landlord has not provided call logs or repair logs for this period, we cannot corroborate this. Therefore while we do not dispute what the resident says, there is no other evidence to confirm when contact was made and what was said at the time.
Internal landlord emails in May 2023 show that it had previously put the resident’s requests to replace the insulation in the property “on hold”. This was due to budget constraints. It is not clear due to the scarcity of records provided whether it communicated this to the resident at the time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so.
The Decent Homes Standard says that properties should provide reasonable thermal comfort. Lack of roof insulation would clearly have had some impact on the thermal comfort of the property. Given that the landlord was aware that the property was without roof insulation, it should reasonably have investigated the resident’s concerns about the temperature within the property
On 22 May 2023 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to replace the insulation. The contractor put this work on hold days later following reports from the resident of further rodent activity in the loft.
We accept that it would not have been sensible to replace the insulation before resolving the rodent infestation. Had it done so rodents may have contaminated the new insulation causing the landlord to have to remove it again. It was therefore reasonable to delay installing the insulation until pest control works were complete.
The landlord has told this Service that it replaced the loft insulation in July 2023. While internal landlord communications in September 2023 corroborate this, we would also reasonably expect the landlord to provide contemporaneous evidence such as works orders or repair logs. In this case it has failed to provide such evidence.
The resident has said that between November 2022 and the replacement of the insulation in July 2023 the property was “freezing” and her heating costs were increased. That the landlord has not demonstrated that it took actions to investigate these concerns was unreasonable, particularly as the resident was disabled and there was a child in the property.
Overall, the landlord did not reasonably investigate the resident’s concerns that the property was too cold. This was unreasonable. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about loft insulation.

Complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 8 May 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident 12 working days later and said it required more time to investigate her complaint and would provide a full response by 14 June 2023. It did not explain in any detail the reason for the delay.
By the time the landlord advised the resident that its response to her stage 1 complaint would be late, it was already outside of the timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 21 June 2023. It therefore did not adhere to the extended timeframe it had given the resident. That the landlord mismanaged the resident’s expectations was unreasonable and a complaint handling failure.
We note that while the landlord was aware of its complaint handling failure as it offered compensation for this. While it was appropriate to offer some compensation, it did not apologise for the failing.
Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated that in line with its complaints policy it could only investigate events which had occurred up to 6 months prior to the complaint.
The landlord’s policy in fact states that it “may” not consider events that occurred more than 6 months before the complaint. It adds that it will use discretion if there is evidence of a “long-standing or continuing problem”.
Within the complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been contacting it about the issue for some time. That it failed to exercise its discretion to review its handling of the issues was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged and apologised for its failings in relation to its handling of the infestation issues and clearly outlined the actions it intended to take to resolve the issues. This was reasonable.
It did not however address all the issues raised by the resident. She had expressed concerns about the cost of heating her home and that her home was “freezing” because it did not have loft insulation. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint, the landlord did not do so in this case. This was a further complaint handling failure.
The landlord has also failed to provide evidence to show that it carried out the actions agreed in its stage 1 response. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to ‘put things right’.
In September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she continued to experience issues with rodents. She detailed the damage caused to the property and her belongings and the impact this was having on her mental health.
The landlord adhered to the timescales as set out in its policy and the Code when issuing its stage 2 response. The response, however, failed to address the issues raised by the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response merely said that it had completed the pest control and insulation works and that therefore it did not uphold the complaint. It did not provide any details of the works completed nor acknowledge or try to resolve the ongoing rodent issue and the distress the resident had expressed. It therefore failed to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way. It also missed a further opportunity to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The resident has paid approximately £625 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s occupation of the property has been affected by rodents and a lack of insulation.
Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £875 compensation for its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding rodents in the property. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent for the periods of November 2022 to May 2023 and June 2023 to February 2024.
We also consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay £500 compensation for its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding loft insulation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent paid between November 2022 and July 2023. We have also ordered the landlord, on production of the relevant evidence, to reimburse the resident for any increased energy costs during this period.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that these are not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
Overall, the landlord has not:
1. Adhered to the timeframes outlined in the Code and its own policy.
2. Reasonably addressed all issues raised by the resident.
3. Demonstrated that it carried out proportionate actions to put things right.
There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodents inside the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about loft insulation.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,625 comprising:
1. £875 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its response to the resident’s reports of rodents.
2. £500 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of the resident’s concerns about loft insulation.
3. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.

This is inclusive of the £200 offered by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. If it has already paid this amount the landlord should deduct this from the compensation ordered.

On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg energy bills showing increased costs) the landlord to reimburse the resident for the increased cost of heating the property due to a lack of loft insulation between November 2022 and July 2023. The landlord should demonstrate that it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and agreed a compensation amount within 2 weeks of the resident providing evidence.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to inspect the property with its pest control contractor. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with an action plan on how it will address the rodent issue in the property. The action plan should include provision for ongoing monitoring of the property to ensure that if the rodents return, it addresses this quickly.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to conduct staff training to all staff involved in complaint handling. The training should explain:
1. The requirements of the Code.
2. That staff must respond to all complaints within the timescales outlined in the Code and its own policy.
3. That in cases where there is evidence of a long-standing or continuing problem it should, in line with its policy, exercise discretion and review events that took place more than 6 months prior to the complaint.