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

Origin Housing Limited (202007115)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007115

Origin Housing Limited

09 May 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:

  1. The resident’s report of bedbugs.
  2. The resident’s report of noise.

Background

2.     The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since December 1986. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 4th floor. The resident has not disclosed any physical, mental health conditions or vulnerabilities to the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident was assigned a social worker from the local authority adult social care team. The landlord is a housing association.

3.     On 16 December 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about a number of issues. These were noise nuisance, he had bedbugs, and the floorboards let cold air into the property.

4.     In its stage 1 response the landlord did not uphold any part of the complaint. It said that in response to earlier service requests he had made (prior to complaining), it had visited the property by planned appointment to take further details about the issues but did not gain access. It said it would contact him to agree a mutually convenient time for its staff to visit him to discuss the issues. After this, it carried out bed bug treatments at intervals and deep cleaned the property. The complaint did not proceed to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.

5.     On 23 June 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint stating he had to replace a mattress and bedding because of damage caused by bedbugs. He requested compensation. In its stage 1 response the landlord declined to pay compensation saying the presence of bedbugs had not been caused by its actions or inaction. It said it would continue to work with him on the issue. The complaint did not proceed to stage 2 of the complaints process.

6.     On 1 August 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint that the landlord had not taken any action in respect of his reports of noise nuisance. It did not uphold the complaint on the grounds the resident had not provided access to the property for it to investigate the noise. It proposed a date and time for it to visit and asked the resident to confirm this or contact it to arrange a time that suited him. After its complaint response, the landlord carried out some actions in respect of the noise reports. The complaint did not proceed to stage 2 of the complaints process.

7.     On 19 January 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. He again requested compensation for the mattress and bedding and informed it that he was still experiencing noise nuisance. The landlord did not uphold the complaints. In respect of the request for compensation, it referred him to its previous response on 11 January 2022 in which it said it was not liable to pay compensation. In respect of the noise reports it said it had been working with him to investigate the noise. The complaint did not proceed to stage 2 of the complaints process.

8.     In February 2023, the resident contacted this service to seek advice about the issues. On 14 April 2023, this service wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide its final response to the issues by no later than 16 May 2023.  In its final response it upheld its position that it was not liable to pay compensation for the bed and bedding. In respect of the noise reports, its position was that it had worked with him and other agencies as far as possible to investigate the matter. It said it would continue to support him with the issues.

9.     The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response and escalated the complaint to this service for investigation. To resolve the matter the resident considers the landlord should pay compensation for the bedding and resolve the issue of noise.

Scope of Investigation

10. In correspondence with this service and the landlord the resident states he experienced bedbugs for 14 years. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”

11. This service understands that the issue has been ongoing for the resident for a number of years. However, it is not always practical or possible to investigate evidence going back a significant period. The documents provided indicate the matter of bedbugs was formally raised to the landlord in December 2021. Therefore, the Ombudsman will look at the landlord’s handling of the matter from December 2021. In respect of noise, the resident states he has been experiencing noise for 15 years and complained in December 2021. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of noise reports from December 2021.

12. In his stage 1 complaint dated 6 December 2021, the resident complained he was unhappy with the floorboards in the property because they were letting in draughts. He requested the floorboards in the home be reviewed. Paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider matters which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon’. The Ombudsman finds the matter of draughty floorboards was determined by this service under complaint 201815042, therefore will not consider the matter again in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of bedbugs.

13. The landlord has a pest control policy. Its policy states it will assess all reported instances of need for pest control. If the issue affects the health of the resident or fabric of the building it will arrange for necessary pest control. It also states, ‘In complex cases external pest control contractors may be consulted or employed to deliver a thorough service to all residents’.

14. As part of its complaint response the evidence shows the landlord instructed an external pest control contractor to attend on 31 January 2022 to carry out an assessment. The records indicate the resident did not attend this appointment due to illness. The landlord then contacted the local authority’s adult social care team to inform it of the situation. In the knowledge the resident had worked with adult social care in the past in relation to the issues, this was an appropriate step to take. It enquired if it was able to provide any assistance with the issue. The adult social care team informed the landlord it had offered the resident a deep clean of the property and offered to provide pest traps in the loft area, but he had declined this.

15. The records provided do not make clear the date the contractor carried out its assessment of the bedbugs. The records show a treatment was carried out in March 2022. After this, it organised a treatment to take place on 28 April 2022 but did not gain access. The next treatment took place in May 2022. After the May treatment, the contractor fed back to the landlord the accumulation of items in the property was hampering the effectiveness of the treatments. The landlord initiated a multi-agency meeting with other agencies such as Environmental Health and adult social care. The Ombudsman considers this was good practice and provided an opportunity for agencies to plan together how to support the resident with the issues. After the multi-agency meeting, the landlord instructed its contractor to deep clean the property to prepare it for the next treatment. The deep clean took place on 15 June 2022. On 28 June the landlord carried out a treatment. The contractor’s attendance notes reflect that it advised the resident to dispose of several infested items, such as the bed base, headboard, and a chair. While this was a reasonable suggestion in the circumstances, the landlord does not appear to have considered how it could support the resident with replacing the items should he decide to act on its advice to dispose of them.

16. On 29 July 2022 a further treatment was carried out. A treatment was scheduled for August 2022,  however, the records provided indicate the resident did not attend the appointment. It is not clear if the landlord and resident agreed the treatments had been effective and that no more treatments would be carried out.

17. The Ombudsman finds the landlords approach was customer focussed and helpful, because it provided a complimentary deep clean of the property to improve the effectiveness of the treatments it wanted to carry out. It was not obligated to do this. It recognised the challenges of the case and communicated at an early stage with adult social care and environmental health about the matter. It had frequent communication with its contractor around scheduling of appointments and different strengths of treatments to apply. The evidence shows the landlord communicated well by email with the resident throughout the course of treatments. The Ombudsman has not identified any delays or service failures following the resident’s complaint about the issue in December 2021. The documents show the landlord continues to provide treatments and carried one out in January 2024. The contractor’s report indicates the matter is not yet resolved. The Ombudsman makes a recommendation to share the findings of the January 2024 pest contractors report with adult social care and environmental health and to keep the case under regular review.

18. The landlord declined to offer compensation to the resident in respect of the bed and bedding that he threw away. The Ombudsman considers the landlord treated the resident in a heavy handed manner at this stage because it did not consider relevant background information such as, its contractor had given the resident advice to throw away the bed base and headboard, and its contractors had informed it that for its pest control treatments to be effective, ‘90% of the items in the property would need to be removed’ but the resident declined to do this. The landlord appears to accept the resident has vulnerabilities but does not appear to have considered the resident’s financial capacity to replace these items or considered what assistance it might be able to give. This was failing in its approach. The landlord could have provided support and assistance to apply for a grant from its Friends of Origin Housing charity or the Local Authority’s household support fund for financial support. The Ombudsman considers that to not do this was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of noise.

19. The landlord has an Antisocial Behaviour policy (ASB policy). The policy states that when it receives an initial report of noise it will consider if the matter is ASB or nuisance. It also has a separate neighbourhood management policy for dealing with nuisance it does not consider antisocial behaviour. This states ‘when assessing which policy a noise report should be handled under, we will also recognise that the time the noise occurred has a bearing on whether the noise is antisocial in nature’.

20. The records show in this case the resident used the landlord’s complaints procedure and copied in the local authority environmental health team to report noise described as ‘buzzing’ and a radio playing in an unspecified location. The landlord may wish to reflect on whether its complaints process was the appropriate way to deal with the reports given that it has a neighbourhood management policy.

21. In December 2021 when the resident complained, the landlord said it would contact him to arrange a visit to listen to the noise. The records indicate it made an appointment and attended the property but was unable to meet with the resident. The landlord then contacted the local authority environmental health team to gain their perspective on the issue. This team advised the landlord that it had booked 3 appointments with the resident on 24 and 26 January, and w/c 31 January 2022 but these had been cancelled by the resident due to illness.

22. In response to this, the landlord asked the environmental health team to reschedule the appointment and asked if it could accompany the officer on the next visit to the resident. This was a customer focused approach and meant the landlord and environmental health team could work together to consider the best approach to take. However, no records have been provided that confirm this joint visit did take place.

23. On 1 February 2022 the resident emailed environmental health and the landlord to report noise coming from the loft space above his flat. He mentioned the noise seemed worse in the evening. The landlord contacted the environmental health team who said it proposed to carry out visits in the evening to witness the noise. For its part, the landlord said it would organise an inspection of the loft space to identify possible causes of the noise. The Ombudsman finds the landlords intention to carry out joint working with the environmental health team was good in principle, however, the landlord has not been provided any evidence that it did inspect the loft space as it said it would. This was disappointing for the resident and meant the residents concern was not properly investigated.

24. It does not appear the landlord took any further action in respect of the noise for the remainder or February or March 2022. The documents provided indicate the landlord’s efforts during this time were focused on treating bedbugs at the property. Between March and April, the resident sent a high volume of emails about the noise he was hearing to several agencies and this service. The resident would repeat his request for the landlord to inspect the loft. The records indicate the landlord informed the environmental health team it intended to visit the property on or around 29 April 2022 in relation to bedbugs. It said it intended to inspect the loft during this visit. However, no records have been provided that confirm it did inspect the loft. This means the resident’s concerns about noise from the loft were not investigated for a second time. This was unfair and unreasonable.

25. In May 2022, the resident contacted this service expressing dissatisfaction about the landlords handling of the noise. This service asked the landlord to provide its final response to the residents December noise complaint. The landlord provided its final response on 23 May 2022. It said it did not uphold his complaint. It said it would like to visit him at home so it could consider what options might be available to it to understand the noise. It said it might use a noise recording application and provide diary sheets. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the home visit was carried out or what actions the landlord took after this. The lack of the landlord’s own case management plan meant that at times it did not carry out timely responses to actions it had committed to.

26. On 4 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating he wanted noise recording equipment installed at his property. No documents have been provided to show the landlord responded to this request, or that it asked another agency to provide this equipment. In the circumstances, this was unfair and unreasonable because the provision of recording equipment would have helped the landlord develop a true understanding of the noise the resident was experiencing. In the event the landlord decided not to provide noise recording equipment, the decision should have been clearly explained to the resident with its reasons.

27. The landlord has provided a schedule of phone calls made by environmental health to the resident between 26 January and 30 March 2022, and between 9 and 12 July 2022. The schedule shows that on many occasions the environmental health team was not able to speak to the resident when it called him. The landlord has not provided any notes or records in relation to its own actions during this time or demonstrated that it carried out a review of the effectiveness of environmental health’s actions or that it considered what it should do considering environmental health teams unsuccessful attempts to engage with the resident. During the times when the environmental health team was not in contact it is not clear what actions and support the landlord provided.

28. In August 2022, the landlord enquired with the environmental health team the status of the resident’s noise complaint. The team informed the landlord that it had not found any evidence of statutory noise and it would shortly close the case. The landlord has not demonstrated this was explained or discussed with the resident. In the circumstances this would be important, especially since October 2022 to the present time (May 2024), the resident sent a high volume of correspondence to many individuals and external agencies about noise. It is likely the resident is experiencing a lack of clarity on which agency is leading on the issue. It is clear the situation is causing distress to the resident, and from his perspective is unresolved.

29. The Ombudsman acknowledges the matter has complexities and recognises landlords will often need to work in partnership with other agencies when responding to noise reports. In this case the Ombudsman finds the landlord was over reliant on the environmental health team to investigate. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence the landlord had its own case management plan or contingency plan for the times external teams were not able to engage the resident. The lack of a timebound case management plan meant that some of the landlord’s actions such as the intended joint visit with environmental health were not followed through. It has not provided any evidence that it responded to the resident’s requests to provide noise recording equipment, or that it discussed the outcome of the request with him. This was unreasonable. It also has not demonstrated that it investigated the loft space to provide reassurances and closure to the resident on his concern about noise from this area. The Ombudsman understands the case is challenging for the landlord but finds there was maladministration  in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of noise.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of bedbugs.

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.

Orders

32. The landlord should apologise and pay £400 in compensation to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This is comprised:

  1. £100 for failing to take into account all the circumstances around the resident’s request for compensation.
  2. £300 for the failings in the landlord’s handling of noise reports.

33. The landlord must carry out an inspection of the loft space and discuss its findings with the resident.

34. The landlord must consider whether it should provide noise recording equipment or a suitable alternative. It should meet with the resident to explain its decision to the resident and follow this up in writing.

35. The landlord must carry out a case review and develop a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) case management plan. It should discuss this with the resident and explain its decisions in writing.

36. The landlord must assist the resident in applying to any support funds available for the replacement of furniture that was disposed of.

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

38. The landlord should consider expanding its neighbourhood management policy to describe what tools it will use where a noise complaint is not considered to be statutory noise, and that also includes a case management plan template so it can record its actions.

39. The landlord should keep the bedbugs case under regular review with the involved agencies. It may also wish to consider convening a multi-agency meeting and inviting the resident to attend if he wishes. If the resident wishes to attend the landlord should consider what support and advocacy the resident might need to attend.