Islington Council (202330664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330664

Islington Council

27 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom, second floor flat where the resident lives with his wife and 2 young children. The landlord is a local authority and says it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
At times, both the resident and his wife contacted the landlord to raise complaints and report issues with the property. However, for the purpose of this report and to avoid confusion ‘the resident’ and ‘he’ has been used to include the actions of the resident and his wife.

Landlord’s obligations

Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are fit for habitation throughout the time of a tenancy. This means a property must be free of serious hazards. Pests and infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). When considering a hazard landlord’s should consider the circumstances very carefully in the interests of the occupiers of the property before concluding that a hazard can not be dealt with effectively and should ensure the resident’s are fully aware of its position.
The landlord’s pest control statement says that it will conduct treatments and inspections to ensure the eradication of the pest infestations and to control infestation as part of its regular pest prevention and control service. It explains that if its investigation finds that the pest infestation is originating form a neighbouring property, then it will liaise with the relevant team to gain entry to that property to treat the infestation.
The landlord’s housing procedure for hoarding says that where an incident of hoarding is reported it would need to investigate, by attending a home visit, to determine whether there is a health and safety hazard which may constitute a statutory nuisance or a breach of the tenancy conditions.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says complaints will be acknowledged within 3 calendar days at stage 1 and 2. But a stage 1 response would be issued within 21 calendar days and 28 calendar days for a stage 2 response.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair log notes that between September and October 2021 its pest control team attended the property 4 times to lay bait. At that time, it said there were ingress points in the kitchen and lounge.
On 6 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that the pest issue had become more serious. He told it of a mice infestation within the property and said that despite it laying bait, it had not stopped the infestation. He described how he saw mice on counter tops and around his food in the kitchen and living room. He said he had a small child and his wife was pregnant at that time and that he was concerned about diseases from the infestation. He told the landlord about his fears and said intervention was needed for his neighbour who was hoarding. He also said that the property suffered from poor carpentry with large holes around pipes.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord’s pest control team attended to lay further bait. It noted that the neighbouring property was the possible cause of a mice infestation.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord completed some pest control work which included foaming holes in the kitchen.
The resident has provided his own record of events from December 2022. Here he says he spoke to the landlord about work needed, which included issue with water tank and holes surrounding it. He said it should remove and replace the tank, sealing off access for mice. He also mentioned work needed to areas in the kitchen. He said a carpenter attended a 30 minute appointment despite needing more time to complete works.
On 5 January 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint via the landlord’s online form. This Service has seen an acknowledgement email of the complaint where it confirms a response will be provided within 10 working days.
The landlord’s proofing report from 13 January 2023 notes that “history of mice at property due to hoarder” next door. Following this visit it listed works to the kitchen for gaps around pipes, kitchen sink unit needing removal to access all gaps and gaps in water tank cupboard would need to be blocked. It said the tank would “likely” require removing. The landlord’s pest control team notes show it also laid bait at that time.
On 26 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had been waiting for the carpenter to get in touch. He said a pest control appointment was made for the afternoon of 8 February 2024 and he wanted the carpenter to attend at that time.
On 30 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that its repairs team had attended at 8am without prior knowledge or agreement. The landlord was told how the appointment was declined due to this and being unable to get the kitchen cleared/ready for it. Concerns were raised about the landlord’s communication and it was told about the stress caused to the resident’s family which included his pregnant wife and his young child, who was having difficulty sleeping due to mice. The resident’s wife said she was finding “droppings on everything, it’s disgusting” and that the situation was causing “significant” stress. At that time the landlord was also told about its contractor leaving a “big hole” giving further access to rodents.
Following a missed call from the landlord on 30 January 2023, the resident asked again if the carpenter could attend with the pest control appointment for 8 February 2023 and repeated how the previous appointment was not long enough.
On 31 January 2023 the resident said he spoke to the landlord about the works needed at the property and that he also spoke to the contractor. He explains that after the calls the landlord found a report from pest control dated 13 January 2023.
The resident has said that on 1 February 2023 he called the landlord about repairs and was told it would fix kickboards and fill holes/gaps. The resident said he received the report from the contractor and this mentioned the kitchen sink and water tank in the living room needed removing.
On 2 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and told it how the pest control report mentioned the removal of the kitchen sink unit and water tank. He told it how its contractor said the report was sent to it on 18 January 2023. He said the situation was “beyond frustrating” as he was going to different departments and had to explain his whole situation again and take time off work to do this. He asked the landlord to take the matter seriously and repeated how its previous work left a big gap for mice. He explained the impact the situation was having on him and his family and how his baby was due the following month. He repeated how he felt the issue was from his neighbour’s property.
The resident has said he called the landlord on 7 February 2022 and a visit was agreed. He explains that the landlord attended on 15 February 2023 and said the property was “unfit to live in with rodent situation”. He says it was agreed that the water tank would be removed and it would close all access to pipes and under floors. Works were agreed for 25 February 2023. The resident has said the carpenter arrived on this date but could not complete work to the sink as the plumber did not attend.
The landlord’s repair log notes from 9 March 2023, say that the kitchen units would need to be removed to pest proof the kitchen and that the tank in a cupboard would also need removing.
On 27 February 2023 the resident and his wife had a baby.
On 3 March 2023 the resident raised his complaint about the ongoing mice issue at the property. He said this was his second complaint, and:
1. Its carpenter attended the week before and completed work to the kitchen. But no plumber attended so the sink work was not completed and mice had since returned.
2. His wife cleared the cupboard for the water tank work but it did not attend despite agreeing it would. He expressed unhappiness that it did not attend after the calls and emails about this.
3. He had stressed the importance of the works by the time his baby was born but had been let down again by the landlord.
4. He now had a newborn in the property and mice were “running around the worktops, living room”. He said this was a health hazard and that the landlord seemed to not care.
5. It did not call to apologise for the situation or try to rearrange the works.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in logging the complaint and said it would aim to respond by 29 March 2023.
On the same day the resident’s wife raised concerns about how long it took for it to acknowledged the complaint and that during its delay the family continued to live in the conditions with a newborn. The landlord was told how the living conditions were making it “impossible to relax or sleep” and how it should do better. The resident’s wife told it how the living conditions were making her more anxious than she could handle and told it to “please help”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in the complaint being logged and said it would apply £25 compensation to the resident’s rent account in light of its delay. It confirmed the resident’s complaint was about its handling of pest proofing work and that he wanted it to investigate and carry out repairs urgently. It said:
1. It had carried out pest control treatment on 12 and 16 October 2022, and 9 November 2022 before recommending proofing works.
2. On 14 November 2022 a routine work order, 20 days, was raised for the removal of kickboards to seal gaps in the wall. A carpenter attended that day, reporting that plinths were removed and two holes were found where pipes were coming into the property. Its contractor used expanding foam to fill the holes and refitted plinths.
3. It carried out further pest treatment on 13, 25 January and 8 February 2023.
4. On 9 January 2023 a further routine works order was raised for the removal of all kickboards and block any gaps found. It also raised an order for checks and block around pipes and for the removal of the kitchen sink. It said this work was scheduled for 20 January 2023, but its contractor was unable to gain access. It said the works were rescheduled for 8 and 15 February 2023 but then cancelled.
5. The resident contacted it on 8 February 2023 disagreeing with its pest control report and requested for a new boiler.
6. It inspected the property on 14 February 2023 and found that the kitchen units would need removing to pest proof the kitchen. The water tank would need to be removed to allow pest proofing in the cupboards as that “appeared to be the worst location of dropping.”
7. On 15 February 2023 a routine works order was raised for a carpenter to remove base units in the kitchen and pest proof holes to stop mice. It said it also raised works for the removal of units in the living room and the need to proof. It scheduled works for 25 February 2023, but its contractor did not provide any notes.
8. It raised a further routine work order on 23 March 2023 for a carpenter and plumber to attend to remove kitchen units and pest proof the kitchen and cupboard. This work was scheduled for 20 April 2023.
9. It recognised and apologised or the delay in pest proofing the property and for the inconvenience caused to the resident and apologised that the experience had not been positive.
10. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it found there was a delay in carrying out proofing work between 15 February 2023 and 20 April 2023.
11. It recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident and awarded £299.98. It explained that this was made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £25 for its poor communication.
  3. £124.98 for its service failure.
On 3 April 2023 the resident told the landlord how he had submitted 2 complaints and it had not responded to the first complaint. He asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and said he and his family had been “going through hell these last couple of years”. He said the most upsetting part was the lack of care and that he had told it about the stress his young child was going through on a daily basis. He said the compensation offer did not reflect the level of stress they had endured as a family.
The resident has said he contacted the landlord on 19 April 2023. The following day the landlord apologised for the delay in commencing its investigation and assured the resident that it was doing everything to reduce the wait times. Within its email it said the resident could contact this Service.
The resident has said, that on 20 April 2023, the landlord completed carpentry and plumbing work to the kitchen but kickboards were still to be fitted at a further date. The landlord’s notes of this work detail the work it completed which included work to the kitchen and that it filled holes with wire wool and rodent stop silicone. The landlord’s repair log confirms says the remaining work to the kitchen units would be completed on 13 June 2023.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 21 April 2023. He told it how the carpentry and plumbing work had not resolved the mice issue. He said how he had to wait for a new appointment for the kickboards. He told it how he could not continue to keep waiting and the work it did was not working. He asked to speak with a supervisor.
The landlord’s pest control team notes it laid bait at the property on 27 April 2023.
The resident sent a further email on 2 May 2023 chasing for a response. Here the landlord was told that the resident’s wife could not “cope” with the issues and described how she was unsure how many mice there were in the property. She repeated how the living conditions were causing anxiety and embarrassment when they had guests. She told it about droppings near her newborn’s bottles. She said how despite the landlord’s work mice were still entering the property and described the issue as “beyond urgent”. The resident sent an email to environmental health about the conditions of the property. This email was then passed to the landlord’s pest control team.
The landlord’s pest control team visited the property on 3 May 2023 and noted that “something needs to be done about the hoarder … I believe this (neighbour’s) property is the source of rodents”.
On 3 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord in its capacity as a local authority to ask questions about rehousing. The landlord was told of the resident’s young child’s mental health due to hearing the mice at night. He said he escalated his complaint over a month ago but received no response.
The resident has said that his wife and children moved away from the property on 5 May 2023 due to the mice issue.
The landlord issued it stage 2 response on 12 May 2023. It thanked the resident for speaking with it earlier that week and apologised for the issues he and his family were facing with mice. It repeated the findings of its stage 1 response and said:
1. The boiler/water tank had been removed and the holes filled. But the mice were still entering the property.
2. It had arranged a joint visit for 17 May 2023, with a surveyor, plumber and carpenter. It said the work to the cupboards would be completed and it would give the resident the opportunity to tell it about any other areas that may be giving access to the mice so that it could take remedial action.
3. It apologised that the resident had not received the level of service expected and it offered additional compensation in light of this. It offered the resident £949.98 compensation in total and explained that this was made up of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £25 for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
  3. £124.98 for its service failure detailed within its stage 1 response.
  4. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble.
On 15 May 2023 the resident’s wife said she was staying with a friend with her 2 young children. She repeated the impact of the living conditions on her and her family. The resident has said the carpenter attended on 16 May 2023 to complete the remaining work and said the mice would still get into the property.

Post internal complaints process

Following the landlord’s internal complaints process a number of emails were sent between the landlord, resident and a councillor. A summary of the contact and events include:
1. On 22 May 2023 the landlord told the councillor that its pest control contractor was to re-inspect the property. It detailed its attempts to contact the neighbour and said an appointment was declined but it would conduct a welfare check.
2. The resident’s records the pest control team attended to replace bait. The resident says he was told mice had bitten through foam previously added and that there were unfilled holes.
3. The resident and his family were moved to a one room hotel on 14 July 2023 initially for 2 weeks but this timeframe was extended.
4. On 19 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that his family were struggling at the hotel without a fridge, cooking facilities, or a washing machine.
5. On 30 August 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had been at a hotel for almost 2 months and had not received an update from it. The landlord responded and said it was still experiencing difficulties in gaining access to the neighbours property. It told the resident to contact it again next week. The resident expressed further frustration with the landlord’s response. He repeated the challenges faced in living at the hotel without cooking facilities, a washing machine and a fridge. Around this time the resident says he was told the landlord was unable to get hold of the neighbour.
6. The resident says that on 13 September 2023 he was told that the landlord had completed repairs and the resident should move back in or declare himself homeless. He says following contact from the resident and due to the ongoing mice infestation the landlord agreed to extend the hotel stay until 1 October.
7. On 19 September 2023 an internal email notes that following a visit there were “numerous” fresh droppings”. It noted an agreement to remove the kitchen again and re-assess behind the units for entry points and noted the situation with the neighbouring property. A 2 week decant was recommended at that time to complete further work. The repair logs notes that the issue would not be resolved if the neighbouring property issue was not resolved.
8. On 26 September 2023 the landlord completed further pest proofing work to the kitchen.
9. The resident expressed further unhappiness on 11 October 2023, he told the landlord that there were more mice droppings and how he could hear mice in the walls at night. He expressed frustration in the landlord not taking action with the neighbour and told it about the smell coming from the neighbour’s property and it becoming a fire hazard. He asked about safe guarding actions the landlord was taking for his young children and repeated his child’s anxiety due to the living conditions. He told the landlord that his young child started to stay with a family member.
10. On 23 October 2023 the landlord’s pest control team noted that it laid fresh bait and the property was very clean. It also said “next door property requires a deep clean.”
11. The landlord has said it gained entry into the neighbouring property in November 2023 and was unable to treat it at that time.
The resident has provided a copy of a letter from his GP dated 16 February 2024, which explains the impact of the resident’s living conditions on him and his family.
On 6 June 2024 the resident told this Service that the situation with the mice remained the same. He explained the impact and suffering caused by the living condition on him and his family. This included his 7 year old child suffering from anxiety due to the mice at the property. He explained how the landlord was told that the mice would return due to the neighbouring property and says how, in his view, the landlord has done nothing to support the resident and his young family. He describes how the landlord had left his family to live in the conditions and has declined his requests to move.
The landlord has told the Service that it has attempted to arrange a visit to the neighbouring property. It is understood that this was arranged for 13 June 2024, however the landlord has not provided an update on the situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s contact with this Service he raised concerns about damp and mould at the property. The evidence shows that the resident reported damp and mould in May 2023. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that formed part of the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint through its internal complaints process.
As such the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property has not been considered within this report. However, the Ombudsman has considered the complaints that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 12 May 2023.

Handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property

The landlord was aware of rodent issues at the property by no later than September 2021. It attended to lay bait at the property multiple times between September and October 2021. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident reported rodents at the property on 12 October 2022 and continued to after this date. Between October 2022 and May 2023 the landlord attended to lay bait at the property several times (October 2022, January 2023, April 2023). During this time it also completed pest proofing work to the kitchen on 4 occasions (in December 2022, February 2022, April 2023 and June 2023). It also completed pest proofing work to the water tank in the living room on one occasion. While the landlord did complete some work to the property, it did not consider long-term solutions to address the rodent issue. This was not appropriate in the circumstances.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response it decanted the resident between July and October 2023 and completed further proofing work to the kitchen. However, since the resident reported further issues with rodents in October 2023, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered a different approach to the rodent issue. This was not appropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord was told in October 2022 that the neighbour’s property was the possible cause of a mice infestation at the property. Its proofing report from 13 January 2023 repeated this adding that there was hoarding at the neighbour’s property and its further visit on 3 May 2023 said the neighbouring property was the “source” of rodents. However, despite what the landlord was repeatedly told, by the resident and its contractor’s, it took until 22 May 2023 to say it would contact the neighbour. This timeframe of almost 8 months to say it would contact the neighbour was not appropriate.
The landlord then took a further 6 months to enter the neighbouring property. However, it remains unclear what the landlord has done to resolve the issues and the resident has told this Service that the rodent issues remains outstanding, for almost 2 years.
The landlord’s failure to take appropriate action, as per its policies and wider obligations to keep the property decent, as well as its failure to deal with the rodent infestation promptly amounts to a serious failing.
The presence of rodents is identified as a hazard in HHSRS and was clearly causing the resident, his wife who was pregnant during part of this time, and his young child significant anxiety and worry (so much so, that the resident’s wife and young children were living away from the property for a period of time and his young child was also regularly living away from the family). The landlord was repeatedly told of the significant impact living with rodents was having on the young child and of the resident’s worries about bringing a new baby into the property. However, despite this and the resident’s pleas for help, the landlord failed to assess the risk in relation to the hazards posed to the family, by the presence of rodents. This was not appropriate especially considering the vulnerabilities it was aware of.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property was not appropriate. While it completed some work it did not always do this in a timely manner, especially when the resident reported issues with its work and gaps left at the property. It missed opportunities to identify sooner that completing the same work would not resolve the rodent issue and in turn failed to act promptly in investigating the reports of hoarding. The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged its delay in completing some proofing work and offered £274.99 in compensation. It also increased its compensation offer within its stage 2 response. However, it failed to recognise the extent of its failings and missed opportunities to support the resident and his young family with a long-term solution. When considering this a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the scale of the landlord’s failings and the serious, potentially long term, impact of this on the resident and his young family. It has also been noted that the issue remains outstanding demonstrating a failure to put things right and learn. As such the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation in light of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident raised his initial complaint on 5 January 2023 and the landlord failed to trigger its complaints process at that time. This was not appropriate and meant the resident had to raise his complaint again on 3 March 2023. The landlord then took until 15 March 2023 to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 29 March 2023. While it met this timeframe, it took 27 calendar days to issue its stage 1 response. This exceeded the timeframe it set within its complaints policy. However, it did appropriately apologise for its delay.
Despite apologising for its delay, the landlord took 40 calendar days to issues its stage 2 response after the resident’s escalation request. This timeframe significantly exceeded the timeframe set within its complaints policy.
Overall, the landlord took 5 months to conclude its complaints process. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration especially when considering its failings at a time the resident repeatedly told it about the serious impact of living at the property.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it offered £25 compensation for its complaint handling delay. The landlord increased its compensation amount in its stage 2 response but failed to identify its further complaint handling failings. When considering the landlord’s complaint handling failings during a time the resident told it about the serious impact of his living conditions, a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.
It is important to explain that usually when such complaint handling failings are found, the Ombudsman would make orders for the landlord to improve its complaint handling process. However, due to the introduction of the new Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) and a landlord’s obligations to follow its requirements as well as a legal duty to complete annual self-assessments, the Ombudsman has not made further orders for complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took 14 months to investigate claims of a neighbour’s “hoarding” causing rodents at the property. It did this despite what it was made aware of and knowing its work to the resident’s property was not resolving the rodent issue. The resident told the landlord about the serious impact living with rodents was having on him and his family which included a young child, a baby and his pregnant wife. However, the landlord failed to act promptly and the issue remains outstanding.
The landlord initially failed to trigger its complaints process and when it did, it failed to respond within the timeframes set within its policy. The landlord took 5 months to conclude its complaints process at a time the resident repeatedly raised serious concerns about his living conditions.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for its chief executive to apologise to the resident in writing, for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,800 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
1. £2,500 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
2. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. The above is inclusive of £949.98 it previously offered the resident, if it has not paid this already.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 2 weeks of the date of this report, to:
1. Conduct a risk assessment of the resident’s property with reference to the vulnerabilities of the resident and his young family.
2. Use the risk assessment to produce a plan, with timescales for addressing any rodent issues affecting the property and the long-term solution against future problems with rodents.
3. Provide a copy of the risk assessment and action plan to the resident and this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. This should be within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified within this report occurred, including why it took as long as it did to investigate the reports of “hoarding” at a neighbouring property.
2. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
  1. The findings and learning from the review.
  2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report the Ombudsman.