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

One Housing Group Limited (202205441)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205441

One Housing Group Limited

8 November 2022

 

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 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 a pest infestation at the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat, and her tenancy began on 14 February 2022.Subsequently, she discovered an infestation of bed bugs within her property, and she informed the landlord about this on 20 April 2022. The resident advised it that, due to insect bites, she was unable to work, and that her son was unable to attend school. She also told the landlord that she had to replace her mattress and sofa bed due to the infestation, and that she had seen pests in communal areas of her building.
  2. The resident explained that she wanted to be temporarily decanted during any infestation treatment. She expected a response from the landlord on the same day but, due to her concern over the infestation, she contacted an independent pest control contractor to begin the treatment.
  3. The resident’s pest control contractor attended her property on21 April2022 and carried out their infestation treatment. The landlord also advised her on that date that it would begin a three-stage infestation treatment from 26 April 2022, which it did at a later date because she had already arranged her own treatment.
  4. However, the resident believed that the landlord should have fumigated or carried out an “adequate” deep clean of her property before she moved in, and then offered to have started its treatment sooner. She therefore made a stage one complaint to it to that effect on 24 April 2022, and that it had not considered her request to be temporarily decanted during the treatment. The resident wanted compensation for the effect of the infestation on her and her son’s health, her distress, her finances from being unable to work, and the treatments and dry cleaning that she had paid for due to the infestation.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 10 May 2022 upheld the resident’s complaint because its unclear communications had failed to set out her obligations regarding infestation treatment within her property. This mistake, as well as it raising a job for its own infestation treatment, had led to a misunderstanding regarding the treatment, which had led to her hiring her own pest control contractor.
  6. The landlord therefore awarded the resident £600 compensation to cover the costs of her hiring the contractor, and of getting all of her bedding dry cleaned due to the infestation. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered to her by it, and so she escalated her complaint to the final stage of its complaint’s procedure on 13 May 2022. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 17 June 2022 partially upheld the resident’s complaint because its stage one response should have explained that getting the infestation treated was her responsibility.
  7. Additionally, the landlord awarded the resident a further £100 compensation for her distress from its communication delays from 17 to 31 May 2022, as it failed to tell her a staff member was on annual leave when she asked them to contact her. It also explained that it would have only fumigated her empty property before she moved in if it had evidence of an infestation, but there had been none in her case including from its inspection report of 2 December 2021 that confirmed a deep clean there, and there had been no previous reports of bedbugs at her property or from her neighbours. The landlord subsequently advised the resident on 29 July 2022 that, following its treatments and inspections on 6 and 23 June and 6 July 2022 that it had completed as a goodwill gesture, the bedbug infestation had been completely eradicated in her property.
  8. The resident nevertheless complained to the Ombudsman because she believed that the landlord was at fault for not fumigating her property prior to her moving in, and that this had affected her and her son’s health. She wanted it to confirm that it would pay for any future infestation treatments, was unhappy with its response to her infestation reports, and did not feel that the compensation offered reflected the severity.
  9. The resident advised that she had financial difficulties and that her rent account was in arrears due to her initially paying for her own infestation treatment and to replace her damaged belongings. Her remaining damages related to the infestation had also not been reimbursed by the landlord, and she wanted it to do so and to be transferred to alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident has raised the effect of her complaint on her and her son’s health and wellbeing and finances, this investigation cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation on their physical and mental health or finances. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure, or where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. As we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for the effect on health, wellbeing or finances in the way that a court or insurer might, we are unable to investigate these matters.
  2. Additionally, this investigation cannot consider the resident’s request for a transfer to alternative accommodation. This is because such transfers are an outcome that are not within our authority to provide in the way that a local authority might. Moreover, complaints about the handling, allocation of properties under, and suitability of accommodation from transfer applications, by local authorities or housing associations acting on their behalf, fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation at the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that treatment for major infestations or those affecting multiple flats or communal areas are its responsibility, but that infestations within the resident’s property are her responsibility. In its complaint responses, it apologised for not signposting her to this, and that, by raising an infestation treatment job itself, it had given her the wrong impression that it was responsible for such treatments within her property. The landlord therefore upheld the resident’s stage one complaint and awarded her £600 compensation, as a goodwill gesture, to cover her costs of hiring a contractor to carry out infestation treatment, and for getting her bedding dry cleaned.
  2. This was appropriate by the landlord because it had not clearly set out that it was the resident’s responsibility to treat the infestation, and this had directly led her to act upon the belief that it was responsible for doing so. This in turn had led to her paying for her own infestation treatment and dry cleaning based on the belief that, because she was not responsible for doing so, she would be entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of this by it. Therefore, reimbursing the resident’s costs was a reasonable form of redress by the landlord because it sought to put things right by placing her back in the position that she would have been in prior to its mistake.
  3. The £600 compensation was awarded for the additional costs incurred by the resident as a result of a failure in service by the landlord was also in accordance with its compensation policy and procedure. These state that it has discretion to award actual, proven financial loss as a direct result of its failure or mismanagement as compensation up to £500. Therefore, the £600 compensation awarded by the landlord to the resident for this was a level of redress that was higher than that recommended by its policy and procedure, which was suitable because it sought to reimburse her costs arising from its error.
  4. The £600 compensation is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where compensation of up to £600 is appropriate for failures by the landlord which have adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. In this case, she was adversely impacted by its failure, but there was no permanent impact from her costs of hiring her own pest control contractor and dry cleaning, as these were reimbursed by it. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the landlord for these items was a reasonable form of redress for this.
  5. In its final stage complaint response, the landlord also partially upheld the resident’s final stage complaint because it had failed to explain that treating infestations within her property was her responsibility. This was appropriate because it clearly stated its position on the matter, in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirements to this effect.
  6. The landlord also made it clear to the resident that it would honour its commitment to the three-stage infestation treatment within her property that it had already arranged to be carried out by its own pest control contractor, at no cost to her. This was also appropriate because it managed her expectations and additionally showed its intent to help her resolve the infestation, which it confirmed on 29 July 2022 that it had done with its treatments and inspections of 6 and 23 June and 6 July 2022. The landlord also addressed any concerns that the resident had about her being charged for its treatment of the infestation by agreeing to pay for this itself as a goodwill gesture, which was reasonable.
  7. In relation to the £100 further compensation awarded by the landlord for the distress caused to the resident by the delay in its communication, that award was additionally in accordance with its compensation policy and procedure. These recommend awards from £50 for delays, distress or inconvenience as a result of a failure in service that had a medium level of impact on her. The delay was between 17 to 31 May 2022, which was ten working days later than when the landlord had advised the resident that it would contact her.
  8. The length of this delay was unlikely to have had more than a medium level of impact on the resident, and therefore £100 further compensation for this was appropriate under the landlord’s compensation policy and procedure. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where an award of up to £100 compensation is appropriate where the landlord’s failing was minimal, of short duration, and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  9. Although the resident wanted the landlord to remove any responsibility upon her to pay for any future infestation treatments within her property, the Ombudsman cannot order or recommend that it act in a way that would breach its own repairs and maintenance policy, unless the policy gives rise to a systemic service failure. As there is no evidence that this did so, and its policy made her responsible for such treatment within the property, we are unable to make it responsible for this.
  10. The resident additionally reported that the landlord should have either fumigated her property, or carried out an “adequate” deep clean, prior to her moving in. In relation to empty properties, its repairs and maintenance policy states that work is carried out in order to leave the property in a clean and tidy manner, and there is no requirement for fumigation.
  11. The landlord’s final stage complaint response also stated that fumigation would only be carried out in cases where evidence of infestation had been found. Neither its inspection report for the empty property of 2 December 2021 that confirmed a deep clean there, the previous residents, nor any of the neighbours, however, had reported any infestation. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately, and in line with its repairs and maintenance policy, because its policy was to make the property clean and tidy in the absence of any evidence that suggested an infestation. It was also not obliged by the policy to have offered her pest control at an earlier date, particularly because she had already arranged this herself.
  12. With regard to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the effect of the infestation on her and her son’s mental and physical health, finances and remaining damages, it should have given her details for its insurance team or insurers. This is in order for her to make a liability insurance claim to it for these damages, in accordance with its complaints policy and compensation procedure. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to provide the resident with these details so that she can do so. This is in addition to re-offering her the £700 total compensation that it previously awarded her if she has not received this already, reviewing its staff training needs regarding complaint communication, and offering her assistance with financial difficulties.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of a pest infestation at her property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £700 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Give the resident details for its insurance team or insurers in order for her to make a liability insurance claim in relation to her and son’s health, finances and remaining damages.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their timescales for communicating with residents about complaints, to ensure that residents are informed of delays at the earliest opportunity.
    4. Contact the resident to offer her any assistance available from it with financial difficulties.