London Borough of Hounslow (202312656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312656

London Borough of Hounslow

31 July 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:
1. The delay in processing the resident’s housing application.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mite infestation in her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure joint tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy started on 29 April 1996. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the third floor, the property has a private balcony with a mesh netting to act as a bird deterrent. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman it had no vulnerability records for the resident.
The resident’s son and appointed representative would, at times, also contact the landlord on her behalf, for ease, both are referred to as “the resident” in this report.
According to the evidence provided, the landlord was first made aware of an issue with pigeons nesting on the residents balcony resulting in a mite infestation, on 24 August 2022. The resident called the landlord and requested an inspection. The resident’s son emailed the landlord the next day and said the netting had torn during a recent storm and the mite infestation had gone through into the inside of the property. He described his mum as “vulnerable, disabled and housebound”. He said he had struggled to get hold of pest control and had been told to contact the housing estate manager.
The resident complained on 10 November 2022, within her complaint, the resident said:
1. The delay in processing her housing application had “seriously undermined” her trust in the landlord. Despite being in band 2 on the housing register for over 4 years she was yet to receive an offer.
2. She experienced issues in contacting the allocations team to discuss her application.
3. She had “closed off” the living room as there was a gap between the window in the living room which she described as a “point of access”. She could therefore not use this room.
4. The mite infestation was present “throughout the flat” and had been ongoing since July 2022.
5. After researching the issue, she had followed advice and removed belongings to storage at her own expense.
6. She was unable to hygienically prepare food due to the infestation, therefore was reliant on takeaways.
7. No action had been taken by the landlord since the infestation was reported.
8. She had “contamination OCD” which made it “unbearable”.
9. She had been told there was a backlog due to service closures over the pandemic and she would have to wait.
On receipt of the residents complaint letter the landlord instructed pest control to contact the resident, which it did on 1 December 2022. According to records provided, it also attempted access on a further 2 occasions before inspecting the property on 12 December 2022 and providing a list of works required to eradicate the infestation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 December 2022, within this response, the landlord:
1. Said it was unfortunate that no suitable properties had come available to offer the resident.
2. Clarified the number the resident could use to reach the allocations team.
3. Confirmed pest control had received a referral from its housing team on 26 August 2022.
4. Said the records from pest control showed they had tried to contact the resident on 20 August 2002 and 5 September 2022 but had not been able to access the property and had “made further attempts”.
5. Confirmed the works were scheduled to be completed on 16 December 2022.
The resident had to cancel the appointment for 16 December 2022 due to ill-health, the works were then rescheduled and completed on 22 December 2022.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 8 February 2023, within her request, the resident disputed the comments made by the landlord about the pest control team trying to contact her. Due to the delay between reporting and works being completed, she requested compensation for failure to carry out essential works for over 3 months and a written apology.
Following contact from the Ombudsman on 7 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 August 2023. Within its response it acknowledged the residents request to escalate her complaint was not registered and apologised. It also:
1. Confirmed housing applications are processed in date order and no suitable properties had been available during the delay in processing the resident’s housing application.
2. Said it had limited stock of properties that met the residents medical need therefore the waiting list would be longer.
3. Reiterated its response at stage 1 that its pest control team had advised records show attempted contact on 2 dates following the infestation being reported.
4. Said other attempts were made but not recorded.
5. Said it had emailed the residents son on 26 August 2022, but did not receive a response.
6. Confirmed the works were completed on 22 December 2022.
7. Advised the resident she could approach the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident approached the Housing Ombudsman on 15 August 2023. She refuted the comments of the landlord in its complaint response that pest control had attempted to contact her and alleged the email referenced by the landlord in its final response said it would get back to her son which is why he did not respond. She had not received a written apology or compensation for not being able to use her living room for a “significant period” and therefore her complaint was unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that “concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlords delay in processing the resident’s housing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In correspondence to the landlord the resident expressed concern that there was a delay in processing her housing application. In response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s need to be rehoused but stated it had been unable to find a suitable property and her housing application had been backdated accordingly. It explained that it did not believe it had any properties that met her needs during the time she was waiting for her application to be processed.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria includes applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds.
While the resident’s concerns and the nature of her complaint are noted, the Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications. Therefore the resident may wish to refer her concerns to the LGSCO accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

Evidence has been seen that shows the resident has said she considers that the mite infestation she has experienced impacted her mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the infestation and the resident’s mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlords response to the residents reports of a mite infestation in her property.

The landlord is a local authority. Where a landlord is a local authority the Ombudsman can only assess its actions in relation to its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. Our remit does not extend to considering the actions of other local authority departments or functions, this would fall under the remit of the LGSCO. As such, we have not directly assessed the actions of the local authority’s pest control team, but they will be referred to within the report, as the landlord engaged this service in its housing management function and for contextual reasons. This report will therefore primarily focus on the housing teams response to the residents reports.
Within the landlords complaint responses it said the pest control team had advised their records had shown they had attempted to contact the resident on 2 occasions following the initial report of the mite infestation on 24 August 2022, they also said other attempts were made but not recorded. No evidence has been seen by the Ombudsman to confirm these attempts were made by the pest control team. Evidence has been seen however to show that the housing team emailed the pest control team on 24 August 2022 and then again on 26 August 2022, after the residents son had sent a further email. The housing team showed a clear concern and requested the issue be addressed as soon as possible due to a “safeguarding concern”.
Following receipt of the stage 1 complaint in November, the landlord has evidenced it requested the pest control team to contact the resident, arrange an inspection and report back with any required works. This was inline with its pest control policy, which details the housing team will maintain an overview of pest control activities within their managed housing stock.
The landlords pest control policy also states that tenants are usually responsible for infestation of pests, however discretion can be applied when a tenant is deemed vulnerable. Although the landlord has not provided vulnerability information for the resident, it acted appropriately on the information provided to it when the issue was reported by the residents son on 25 August 2022.
Within this case it is not evident why the resident did not report the damaged net prior to the issue with mites becoming apparent. The initial report on 24 August 2022 details the net being broken by a storm “ a few months ago”. The tenancy agreement indicates the resident should notify the landlord as soon as possible of any damage or repair that could be its responsibility. There does not seem to be a dispute in this case that the landlord accepted responsibility to repair the netting barrier and eradicate the pests. It is evident that the housing team acted appropriately and in line with its policy in referring the issue of the infestation onto the pest control team and subsequently authorising the required works.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

The landlords complaint policy states it will aim to respond to complaints at stage 1 of its process within 15 working days. The same policy says it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.
Although the landlord said it had received the resident’s complaint on 24 November 2022 within its stage 1 response, the resident emailed her complaint to the landlord on the 10 November 2022. It responded on 16 December 2022, 12 working days outside of its policy timescale. The landlord did not give reason or show evidence that it had looked into why the residents complaint was not looked at for 2 weeks.
In addition, it did not register or respond to the residents escalation request on 8 February 2023. Although it apologised for this oversight following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had investigated what had gone wrong and therefore was unable to say how it could put it right or ensure it would not happen again. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s statement that she alleged to have been told she would have to wait due to a backlog, which was not appropriate. Complaints should be seen as an opportunity to learn from any mistakes and drive service improvements. In this case the landlord missed an opportunity to learn from its past error.
The landlord issued its final response on 10 August 2023, 127 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait and caused time and trouble in approaching the Ombudsman.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In addition to its failure to investigate what had gone wrong in its complaint process, the landlord did not respond to the compensation request from the resident or acknowledge her vulnerabilities and the impact the infestation had on her. This was not appropriate and subsequently led to the resident pursuing her complaint with the Ombudsman. Taking the above into consideration there was service failure by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s delay in processing the resident’s housing application is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents reports of a mite infestation in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must directly pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience caused by its failures identified in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and quality control measures for example, by means of random sampling of its complaint responses.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within the associated timescales.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, it is recommended the landlord inspect the residents property to ensure there are no gaps within the windows in the living room as stated in the residents complaint.
It is recommended that the landlord include all escalation options for residents in its final complaint responses when complaints include various issues about its function as a landlord and a local authority.