Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lewisham Council (202207457)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207457

Lewisham Council

4 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Spitting, littering, and racial abuse by neighbours.
    2. Damp and mould at his property.
    3. A rat infestation at his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat in a block. He has mental health conditions and learning difficulties, which it has recorded as making him vulnerable. The resident reports that his housing conditions have worsened his mental health and led to him being prescribed an asthma inhaler for breathing problems.
  2. Following previous reports from the resident and responses by the landlord in 2019 and 2021 of noise from a neighbour and damp and mould at his property, he contacted it again in January 2022. He told it the neighbour had verbally racially abused him, affecting his mental health, which it opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case for on the same day and agreed to contact the neighbour about and update him. As the resident’s MP’s office also contacted the landlord and the police on the same date with concerns about his mental health and support due to his above report, it agreed to consider legal action against the neighbour if the racial abuse was proven. It then gave the neighbour a verbal warning about the alleged racial abuse on the next day.
  3. The landlord subsequently visited the resident and the neighbour 2 working days after he reported racial abuse from them in January 2022. It did so to investigate if there was evidence to take legal action against the neighbour for this, which it discussed with both parties and the neighbour denied. The landlord also knocked on other neighbours’ doors to seek further evidence, but they did not answer, and it gave information to the police at their request, who visited the resident on the previous day and made vulnerable adult and safer neighbourhood team referrals for him. He then told it in February 2022 that the neighbour had gone quiet since its visit, so it closed his case and advised him to contact it and the police again if there were further issues.
  4. In March 2022, the resident again reported racist abuse from his neighbour. The landlord therefore discussed this with them, sent a warning letter, updated and asked him to keep sending it evidence, and agreed to follow its ASB process that could lead to legal action if this continued on the same date. However, it closed his case again in May 2022 after receiving no more evidence and scheduling another neighbour visit. The resident subsequently reported damp and mould in his bedroom and wardrobe to the landlord with photographs in December 2022 but received no response. He then told it in January 2023 that unknown people were throwing cigarettes and spitting outside his property that he thought was racial, but it did not take action for this.
  5. The resident went on to report damp and mould to the landlord again in February 2023 but he still did not receive a response from it. He therefore chased it about this in May and June 2023, when it gave him information about condensation and missed an inspection it rearranged. The landlord also texted the block’s residents that their tenancies did not permit them to throw cigarette butts. Its subsequent July 2023 inspection found damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom and lounge, including from an apparent leak next door. The Ombudsman then asked the landlord to respond to him about this in August 2023 at his request, and so did his GP’s surgery that added that this and pests at his property had distressed him and affected his mental wellbeing.
  6. The landlord therefore agreed in September 2023 to respond to the resident and fill in a gap under his kitchen sink allowing rats in. It did not get access for 2 damp and mould inspections appointments in September and October 2023 that he did not rearrange as it asked him to. The resident additionally reported 2 neighbours spitting in his front garden in October 2023 that the landlord unsuccessfully tried to visit and call him about before visiting and agreeing to investigate this and look for videos he previously sent it. It subsequently confirmed it found these but could not identify anyone from the videos in November 2023, making an appointment to fill the gap under his sink. The landlord then wrote to the block’s residents in December 2023 about spitting.
  7. The resident’s solicitors went on to send the landlord a letter of claim under the pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims in December 2023. This was to instruct a single joint expert to inspect damp and mould in his hallway, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom, and the rat infestation under his kitchen sink and in the bedroom. The resident claimed damages for these causing him distress, discomfort, and inconvenience. His solicitors subsequently told the landlord in January 2024 they had instructed their own expert as it had not responded, seeking to issue court proceedings if it did not do so within 7 days. The resident also told it in January 2024 that 2 neighbours spat in his garden, so it asked for evidence of this after 4 working days, agreeing to contact them.
  8. The resident then made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in January 2024 about its above delays, lack of responses, support, and communication. He explained these caused him inconvenience, frustration, fear for his health and safety, and affected his quality of life. The resident therefore asked for a new housing officer and for a review of the landlord’s procedures and communication protocols. Its subsequent January 2024 stage 1 complaint response referred to its above ASB actions, encouraged him to report racial abuse to the police, and explained it needed evidence to take enforcement action against his neighbours. However, it partly upheld his complaint for its delays, lack of communication, and not initially investigating his videos.
  9. The landlord added it rearranged the resident’s missed damp and mould inspection to February 2024 to arrange works for this and gave him its pest control team’s contact details. Its inspection found damp, mould, and water damage from a possible leak next door in his bedroom and lounge again, asking pest control to respond to the rat infestation. The landlord also chased leak inspections and repairs at the next door property from February to April 2024, when it was told this was already done. The resident’s subsequent March 2024 final stage complaint explained he already gave it evidence of neighbours’ littering, spitting, and racially abusing him it had not resolved, together with the damp and mould, and that its housing officer attended without appointments.
  10. The landlord surveyed and treated the resident’s block for rats in March 2024, when he gave it videos of a neighbour spitting, who it agreed to visit and warn and update him. In April 2024, it booked further treatment and responded to his final stage complaint by apologising for its delayed response to the videos, confirming he did not want it to act further for the racial abuse he reported to the police that it invited him to report to it again. The landlord also apologised for not getting access to an upstairs property to trace and resolve the resident’s property’s leak, damp and mould, taking legal action to do so if necessary. It said its treatment and appointment to repair holes in his kitchen should resolve the rat infestation, which it would monitor and text all residents a survey about.
  11. The landlord began works to block rat holes in the resident’s kitchen in April 2024 it could not complete as he was unwell, which he chased it for an appointment it made in May 2024, when it began damp and mould works next door. It continued these into August 2024, when it booked another damp and mould inspection to do works at his property. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not resolve his neighbours’ spitting, littering and racial abuse, despite the evidence he gave it of this. He added that the damp, mould, and rat infestation was unresolved since moving to his property, worsening his mental and physical health, it missed and attended without making appointments, and he had outstanding plumbing and window repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is very concerning that the resident has explained that he has outstanding plumbing and window repairs, that he has had damp, mould, and a rat infestation since moving to his property in 2018, and particularly that his health has worsened. This investigation is nevertheless limited under the Scheme to considering the landlord’s handling of spitting, littering, racial abuse, damp, mould, and the rat infestation since 2022.
  2. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints not brought to its attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.
  3. There is no evidence a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of his outstanding plumbing and window repairs has exhausted its complaints procedure yet. This is therefore not something the Ombudsman can currently consider under paragraph 42a of the Scheme. We also cannot investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp, mould, and rat infestation reports before 2022 under paragraph 42c of the Scheme. This is because any reports made prior to that date were not made within a reasonable period of within 12 months of when the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf about these issues in 2023. We additionally cannot determine liability or award damages for his health worsening under paragraph 42f of the Scheme, as we do not have the authority that courts or insurers do.

Spitting, littering, and racial abuse

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreements prohibit its tenants and their households and visitors from any ASB, harassment, or nuisance to anyone in the neighbourhood, including littering and racial abuse. Its ASB policy and procedure oblige it to respond to reports of hate crimes within 24 hours and of littering and nuisance within 3 working days, agree action plans, be clear about its actions, outcomes and conclusions, investigate to gather evidence, and consider vulnerabilities in every case. The landlord may consider actions for ASB including speaking to alleged perpetrators, giving them verbal and written warnings, seeking legal action and liaising with the police, discussing case closures with the resident and informing him of these.
  2. The landlord initially responded to the resident’s reports of racial abuse in line with its tenancy agreements and ASB policy and procedure. This is because it did so within the policy and procedure’s 24-hour timescale for hate crimes, after he and his MP’s office reported a neighbour racially abused him verbally affecting his mental health on 11 January 2022, by contacting him on the same day. The landlord also agreed an action plan on that date for it to contact the neighbour and update the resident that week, considering legal action against them if racial abuse was proven, as required by its policy and procedure. It additionally followed the above timescale by contacting and verbally warning the neighbour on 12 January 2022, as permitted by the policy and procedure.
  3. Moreover, the landlord acted promptly in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure by investigating the resident’s racial abuse report within 2 working days on 13 January 2022 by visiting the neighbour and him on that date. It also attempted to seek further evidence by knocking on other neighbours’ doors on the same day, but they did not answer, and it gave information to the police at their request, in line with the policy and procedure. This was appropriate because the police had visited the resident on 12 January 2022 and made vulnerable adult and safer neighbourhood team referrals for him. It was therefore necessary to liaise with the police about their involvement with the resident, who the landlord suitably agreed to update on 14 January 2022.
  4. The landlord went on to follow its obligation from its ASB policy and procedure to be clear about its outcomes and conclusions and discuss and inform the resident about case closures. This is because it spoke to and confirmed with him on 2 February 2022 that his neighbour had gone quiet after it visited them about his racial abuse report, and it appropriately invited him to contact it or the police about any future issues, when it sent him confirmation it had closed the case on the same date. The landlord then suitably re-opened the resident’s case and acted within the policy and procedure’s 24-hour hate crime timescale again for his next report of racial abuse from the neighbour on 25 March 2022. It did so by discussing this with and sending them a warning letter on that date.
  5. The landlord also subsequently updated the resident on its above actions on 25 March 2022, agreeing to follow its process that could lead to legal action if racial abuse continued and asking to continue to receive evidence. These steps appropriately complied with its ASB policy and procedure, and it went on to follow them by confirming his case closure again on 20 May 2022, as it received no more evidence but would make another visit to the neighbour. However, the landlord then failed to take any action when the resident reported unknown people littering cigarettes and spitting outside his property that he thought was racial on 30 January 2023, which was unsuitable. The policy and procedure instead required it to respond within 24 hours or 3 working days.
  6. While it may have been understandably difficult for the landlord to deal with littering and spitting by unknown perpetrators, its ASB policy and procedure still obliged it to respond to the resident about this and agree an action plan, investigate, and communicate its outcomes and conclusions. The fact that it could still take steps for this was shown on 22 June 2023, when he next reported cigarette littering to it in his back garden, as it spoke to neighbours who denied this and so it texted the block’s residents that their tenancies did not permit them to do so. This was an appropriate and timely response in line with the policy and procedure because the landlord explained there was no other evidence to allow it to take enforcement action for this at that time.
  7. The landlord also initially attempted to comply with its ASB policy and procedure when the resident reported 2 neighbours spitting in his front garden on 10 October 2023. It tried to contact and visit him at that time, making a telephone appointment with him on 23 October 2023 when it could not reach him, and subsequently visiting him on 26 October 2022. It is nevertheless of concern the resident then told the landlord he had already sent it videos of the spitting it had not investigated, and he was concerned his housing officer did not support or communicate with him about this. The landlord went on to confirm on 21 November 2023 it could not identify anyone from the videos so it wrote to the block’s residents about this instead on 19 December 2023.
  8. The landlord therefore unsuitably delayed investigating and responding to the resident’s videos by taking up to 30 working days to do so from October to November 2023. It also unreasonably took a further 20 working days from November to December 2023 to send a block letter, as it did not explain or update him on this further delay. The resident then complained on 16 January 2024 of feeling unsafe from his neighbours’ behaviour, asking for a new housing officer and a review of the landlord’s procedures and communication protocols. He also told it on 23 January 2024 that the 2 neighbours spat in his garden again, so it asked for evidence of this on 29 January 2024, agreeing to contact them but explaining it needed evidence to take enforcement action.
  9. The landlord took 4 instead of the 3 working days required by its ASB policy and procedure to respond to the resident’s latest report of spitting. However, it appropriately agreed to investigate this while explaining evidence was necessary to take further action, as this accorded with the policy and procedure. It was also suitable that the landlord’s 30 January 2024 complaint response tried to reassure the resident about his housing officer, referred him to the police, and explained it needed evidence to take enforcement action for this. It additionally acknowledged that it had delayed and not communicated about or initially investigated his videos, which was reasonable.
  10. However, it is concerning the landlord did not do more to address the resident’s safety concerns, given it recorded he was vulnerable due to his mental health conditions and learning difficulties that its ASB policy and procedure required it to consider in every case. This is because he reported this worsened his mental health, which would have further increased his distress and inconvenience from the ASB he experienced, so it would have been more appropriate if it had referred him to and liaised with more agencies than the police to support him with this. The resident added on 14 March 2024 that the landlord had not resolved the ASB despite the evidence he gave it, including more videos of the 2 neighbours spitting in the area outside his front garden on 7 March 2024.
  11. The landlord subsequently confirmed to the resident on 16 April 2024 2 videos appeared to identify a neighbour spitting, who it agreed to visit to address this and issue them a written warning if confirmed, updating him by 26 April 2024. It suitably investigated this, agreed to visit and warn the neighbour, and outlined its action plan in line with its ASB policy and procedure. However, the landlord took 26 working days to do so instead of the 3 working days required for such nuisance by the policy and procedure, which was unreasonable. It was therefore appropriate its 16 April 2024 final stage complaint response also apologised for taking too long to respond to the resident’s latest videos, and for not managing his concerns about his neighbours in a timely manner.
  12. The landlord also suitably confirmed on the above date that the resident had explained in February 2024 he had not wanted further action taken for the racial abuse he had reported to the police and not experienced since then. It was nevertheless reasonable that it invited him to report future racial abuse to it and the police for it to investigate and consider taking action for, as this was in accordance with its tenancy agreements and ASB policy and procedure. However, it is concerning that the landlord neither offered the resident a remedy other than an apology for its above ASB delays nor outlined its learning to prevent these from occurring again. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles for it to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord’s reimbursements and remedies procedure recommends up to £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience because of its failures exceeding what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept. This is also in the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affect residents. As the vulnerable resident reported distress and inconvenience from its 71 working days of total delays in handling his ASB reports and failure to respond to his January 2023 report at the time, this would have exceeded what he could be expected to accept. As this therefore also adversely affected him, it has been ordered below to pay him £250 compensation in recognition of his distress and inconvenience from its delays in his ASB case.
  14. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s reports of spitting, littering, and racial abuse by neighbours. This is in order to identify exactly why its delays in handling his reports occurred and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from happening again in the future. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include reviewing its staff’s training needs in relation to the application of its ASB policy and procedure to ensure this is followed to provide timely responses to ASB reports, and to consider vulnerabilities, in every case.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord is obliged by the resident’s tenancy agreement to keep the structure and exterior of his property in good repair. Its damp, mould, and leaks policy requires it to determine the causes of these issues, take remedial action to resolve them, and investigate further when it cannot do so immediately. The landlord is to clearly communicate with residents about what actions it will take and when, offer alternative interim solutions or advice and support to limit the impact until it can offer a permanent solution, and require prompt access to stop leaks. Its repairs policy obliges it to respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord failed to deal with the resident’s initial damp and mould reports in line with his tenancy agreement and its damp, mould, and leaks and repairs policies by not responding at all, which was completely unacceptable. He began sending its damp and mould team reports of damp and mould in his bedroom and wardrobe with supporting photographs on 28 December 2022, when he asked it to call him as soon as possible, as he had been unable to reach it after several calls about this. However, instead of immediately investigating, determining, remedying, advising and supporting the resident for this structural repair, required by the agreement and policies within 20 working days, the landlord did not reply to him, which was extremely inappropriate.
  3. Moreover, the landlord continued to fail to respond to the resident’s damp and mould reports, contrary to its above obligations, when he repeated these on 8 February and 31 May 2023. This is of particular concern because he told it on 5 June 2023 the condition of his bedroom had worsened to the point he could no longer live there. While the landlord then partly followed its damp, mould, and leaks policy by advising the resident about condensation on 8 June 2023, it was unsuitable it initially asked him for photographs of this he had already provided, instead of investigating and determining the damp and mould itself, in line with the policy. It was only after he explained this, and that he had waited nearly 6 months, that it correctly raised an inspection on the next day for 5 July 2023.
  4. However, not only was the above inspection 2 working days outside the landlord’s repairs policy’s 20-working-day response timescale after the resident’s 5 June 2023 report, it then missed the inspection. The fact it did so and failed to give an explanation for this was unreasonable, and so it attempted to rearrange the damp and mould surveyor’s inspection to 25 July 2023. As the resident was unwell on that date, he rearranged this to the next day, when the surveyor found mould by the window and in a corner and on the skirting in his lounge, and damp and mould in a corner of his bedroom and on the walls from an apparent leak from next door. The landlord nevertheless did not take any further action for this at the time, which was again completely unacceptable.
  5. The resident’s GP’s surgery therefore chased the landlord on 31 August 2023 to explain his distress about the mould at his property was affecting his mental wellbeing, which is very concerning. It therefore raised further damp and mould inspections at the property for 15 September and 27 October 2023. However, the landlord closed this job after the resident confirmed appointments with it and it could not gain access for either inspection, leaving a card advising him to contact it within 48 hours or it would close the job. While it was understandable for it to ask him to rearrange confirmed appointments it could not then access, it was inappropriate for it close this job within a short timescale instead of contacting him to arrange further inspections when it did not hear from him.
  6. The landlord had recorded that the resident was vulnerable as a result of his mental health conditions and learning difficulties. It had also been chased by his GP’s surgery because his mental health had worsened due to the unremedied damp and mould at his property it had left unremedied since December 2022, including from a possible leak from next door. It was therefore extremely unsuitable that the landlord closed the resident’s damp and mould job rather than following its damp, mould, and leaks policy. This required it to clearly communicate to him what actions it would take and when, and offer alternative interim solutions to limit the impact until this was permanently resolved, but there is no evidence it did so, which was unreasonable.
  7. It is particularly of concern that the landlord’s inaction led the resident to instruct solicitors to begin a legal disrepair claim, including for damp and mould in his hallway, kitchen, and bedroom on 6 December 2023, almost a year after his first report. This is especially because it did not respond to his solicitors about this, who had to chase it and warn they would seek to issue court proceedings if it did not provide a response on 11 January 2024. The landlord instead further delayed replying to the resident and his representatives, and its subsequent 30 January 2024 complaint response only agreed to re-inspect his property on 27 February 2024, which was inappropriately not within 20 working days of the solicitors’ reports but of its response, contrary to its repairs policy.
  8. The landlord’s above damp and mould surveyor’s further inspection again found water damage and mould from an apparent leak from next door in his bedroom, wardrobe, and lounge. This therefore demonstrated that it had unnecessarily delayed action for this since its previous inspection’s similar findings 7 months earlier in July 2023, which was unsuitable. The landlord then contacted its contractor from 27 February 2024 about the possible leak next door, which they could not gain access for on 1 March 2024. It subsequently chased this again from 15 March 2024 until the contractor confirmed on 4 April 2024 that the next door neighbour described the leak as repaired but declined a further inspection of this.
  9. It was therefore reasonable the landlord told the resident on 16 April 2024 it would start its leak access procedure leading to legal action if it still could not get access to trace and resolve the leak affecting his property, in line with its damp, mould, and leaks policy. It then confirmed planned works by its damp and mould team next door on 10 May 2024, which continued when it confirmed on 2 August 2024 that both properties were damaged by a previous leak from upstairs it agreed to re-inspect his property on 7 August 2024 to arrange repairs for. While it was understandable the landlord had to trace and resolve the leak affecting the resident’s property and get access to do so, it is very concerning it took 14 months from December 2022 to February 2024 to begin this.
  10. It is noted the landlord was delayed in progressing the resident’s damp and mould case from not accessing his property for inspections in September and October 2023. It nevertheless neither explained nor acknowledged its failures to respond to his damp and mould reports from December 2022 to May 2023, and it prematurely closed this job without then taking action following requests from him and his solicitors from November 2023 to January 2024. It was therefore also inappropriate the landlord did not apologise to or consider giving the resident any other remedies to recognise its excessively lengthy and unexplained delays in handling his damp and mould reports. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
  11. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident compensation totalling £1,978.33 in recognition of its failings in handling his damp and mould reports. This includes the up to £1,000 recommended by its compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for distress and inconvenience from serious repeat failures that had a significant physical and emotional impact on him. The above award also includes £978.33 for loss of use of the resident’s bedroom for 44 weeks, being 52 weeks in the above period when the landlord did not take action for damp and mould, less its repairs policy’s 4-week response timescales after his December 2022 report and its October 2023 attempted inspection.
  12. The above amount has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure’s formula to divide the 1 bedroom lost by the 4 rooms at the property multiplied by the resident’s £84.20 and £91.15 net rent for the period and the number of weeks affected. This award has taken into account its difficulties in accessing his and his neighbours’ properties. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation in its handling of his reports of damp and mould at his property, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on him.
  13. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to contact the resident to clearly communicate what actions it will take and when for the damp and mould at his property in a schedule of works. It is to regularly update him on its progress and offer alternative interim solutions, advice, or support to limit the impact until it can offer a permanent solution, in line with its damp, mould, and leaks policy. It is also noted that the landlord completed a self-assessment of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould after the resident’s case began. However, it is still of concern that it has not outlined how it will prevent its failings in his case from occurring again, contrary to our dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.
  14. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of the identification and completion of repairs, communication, and risk management especially for vulnerable residents – similar to those identified in case 202124577. The Ombudsman has not, however, made any further orders for it to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577, which the landlord has now complied with. We expect it to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with us following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
  15. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows us to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the special investigation. The learning from this damp and mould assessment, in particular, has been flagged for consideration in our special report.

Rat infestation

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep his block’s communal areas in good repair, as well as his property’s structure and exterior. Its pest management policy requires it to consider treatments for rat infestations, mostly as part of block control programmes, but in individual properties in some circumstances, including via proofing and repairs that it is to respond to within 20 working days under its repairs policy.
  2. The landlord initially attempted to respond to the rat infestation at the resident’s property in line with his tenancy agreement and its pest management and repairs policies. This is because it responded to his GP’s surgery’s report of 31 August 2023 of such pests in his property affecting his mental wellbeing by raising a 20-working-day priority order to fill in a gap under his kitchen sink that let rats in within that timescale on 22 September 2023. However, the landlord then scheduled the works 51 working days after the initial pest report on 10 November 2023 and it did not record whether these were completed, which was inappropriate. There is therefore no evidence to confirm it attended the initial report at the time, as required by the agreement and its policies.
  3. The next rat infestation report for the resident’s property was provided to the landlord by his solicitors on 6 December 2023, who explained this was in both his kitchen and bedroom. The solicitors nevertheless had to chase it on 11 January 2024 because it had not responded to them or the report, and he then told it this was affecting his living conditions on 16 January 2024. However, the landlord’s only response was to provide the resident with its pest control team’s contact details on 30 January 2024, and to invite him to contact them to arrange a treatment. This was unsuitable, as it had received his solicitors’ pest report 36 working days earlier, but instead of addressing this itself it put the onus on him to report this again despite it since being chased about this twice.
  4. Therefore, the landlord once more exceeded its repairs policy’s 20-working-day timescale for proofing works for the rat infestation at the resident’s property. It also failed to repair or treat the property to address this at the time contrary to his tenancy agreement and its pest management policy. The landlord instead unreasonably only responded after a report of holes needing to be filled in for the rat infestation in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom from its damp and mould surveyor on 27 February 2024. It then arranged a survey and treatment in his block’s communal area on 27 March 2024, which recommended a further survey and treatment it booked for 8 April 2024. The landlord therefore took steps to address the rat infestation 21 working days after its surveyor’s report.
  5. It is nevertheless of concern that the landlord only told the resident on 16 April 2024 that its above block survey had found no more rat activity, which it would continue to monitor and send all residents a text survey for. It also only made an appointment to investigate and repair his property’s rat holes on 9 May 2024. While these were appropriate actions to finally address the rat infestation in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s pest management policy, its appointment was 37 working days after his latest pest report to it on 14 March 2024. Moreover, this was 174 working days after the initial report in August 2023, which was an unsuitably excessive unexplained delay.
  6. However, the landlord’s complaint responses neither acknowledged nor apologised to the resident for its above delays in responding to his reports of a rat infestation at his property, which was unreasonable. It additionally did not offer him any other remedies to try and put things right, or show any learning from its handling of this case to prevent future pest control delays by it, contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. This was despite the fact that the landlord had recorded that the resident was vulnerable due to his mental health conditions and learning difficulties, and that he had reported experiencing distress and inconvenience from the outstanding rat infestation at his property, which was inappropriate.
  7. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation in its handling of his reports of a rat infestation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on him. As the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends up to £600 compensation to recognise such failures adversely affecting residents, it has also been ordered to pay him this amount in recognition of its delays in responding to his rat infestation reports. This is additionally within the range of compensation recommended by the landlord’s reimbursements and remedies procedure for distress and inconvenience from such repeated failures.
  8. Moreover, the landlord has been ordered below to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation at his property. This is in order to identify exactly why its delays in handling his reports occurred and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from happening again in the future. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include reviewing its staff’s training needs in relation to the application of its pest management policy to ensure this is followed to provide full, timely, and effective responses to reports of pests in every relevant case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of spitting, littering, and racial abuse by neighbours.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at his property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation at his property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £2,828.33 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £250 in recognition of his distress and inconvenience from its delays in responding to his reports of spitting, littering, and racial abuse by neighbours.
      2. £1,000 in recognition of his distress and inconvenience from its delays in responding to his reports of damp and mould at his property.
      3. £978.33 in recognition of his loss of use of his bedroom for 44 weeks.
      4. £600 in recognition of his distress and inconvenience from its delays in responding to his reports of a rat infestation at his property.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation in its handling of his reports of damp and mould and a rat infestation at his property, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on him.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to clearly communicate what actions it will take and when for the damp and mould at his property in a schedule of works, regularly updating him on its progress and offering alternative interim solutions, advice, or support to limit the impact until it can offer a permanent solution.
    4. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review within 8 weeks of its handling of the resident’s reports of spitting, littering and racial abuse by neighbours, and of a rat infestation at his property. This is to identify exactly why its delays in handling his reports occurred, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from happening again in the future. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
      1. Its staff’s training needs in relation to the application of its ASB policy and procedure.
      2. Its staff’s training needs in relation to the application of its pest management policy.

This is to ensure it provides timely responses to reports and considers vulnerabilities in every ASB case, and that it provides full, timely, and effective responses to reports in every relevant pest control case.

  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.