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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202342780)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342780

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 December 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:
    1. Personal data and subject access request (SAR).
    2. Reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property.
    3. Concerns about a leak coming from the water tank in the loft.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in her property with her partner and 4 children, aged between one and 18.
  2. Between December 2022 and January 2023 the resident made several reports to the landlord about a pest infestation within the loft of her property. She explained that the pests were entering the property through gaps in the walls and vents.
  3. Between 7 February 2023 and 27 February 2023 a pest contractor attended the resident’s property. The contractor detected an external pest infestation, so they laid bait traps in the resident’s garden and within the loft space. The pest contractor then told the landlord about proofing works that needed to be completed to a number of damaged air bricks and vents in the brickwork of the property. The contractor said these repairs were needed to prevent the pest infestation from continuing to enter the resident’s property.
  4. In June 2023 the landlord raised a repair for it to carry out works in line with the pest contractor’s recommendations. The landlord said it completed these repairs on 4 July 2023.
  5. On 4 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the proofing works that were identified by the pest contractor. She said the pests had returned over the winter period and were breeding in her loft. The resident explained that the pests had been able to access her loft as the landlord had not placed the wire grates over the vents as the pest contractor had previously advised.
  6. On 14 January 2024 the resident raised an emergency repair to the landlord about a leak coming from the water tank in her loft. There was also damage to the structure of the water tank. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and completed a temporary make-safe repair. The contractor returned the next day stating they would carry out the further works to the water tank on 16 January 2024. The contractor did not attend this appointment.
  7. On 16 January 2024 the landlord told the resident that it would escalate her concerns about the outstanding repairs at the property. It said that it was unable to provide a response to her complaint at that time. The resident continued to chase the landlord for it to respond to her repairs, and her stage one complaint. She also submitted a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord during this period. On 22 February 2024 the landlord said it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  8. On 28 February 2024 the pest contractor carried out an inspection at the resident’s property. The contractor then submitted a quote to the landlord for a number of works which they said needed to be completed to address the on-going pest infestation at the property. This included the following:
    1. The pests had created burrows at the front and rear of the property, and there was damage to the air vents. These needed to be proofed to prevent access for pests in and out of the resident’s property.
    2. The contractor laid 2 bait stations at the front, and 2 at the rear of the resident’s property to help control the identified pest activity.
    3. The contractor said the resident should continue to use the snap traps in the loft as they had been doing up until that time.
    4. The loft insulation was highly contaminated and required urgent removal as this was dangerous to the resident’s health. The loft also required proofing to prevent the pests gaining access to the loft.

 

  1. The pest contractor said that a drain survey urgently needed to be completed. This was because they had identified signs of burrowing near to the drain points, which suggested there was damage to the drains caused by the pests.
  1. In March 2024 the resident, her local councillor, and the local authority’s environmental health team chased the landlord to carry out the repairs to address the pest infestation, and damage to the water tank at the resident’s property.
  2. On 24 March 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord said it would not investigate its handling of the resident’s pest infestation for the period of 2023. It said this was because it had completed the repairs in July 2023 and the resident had not raised any concerns about a pest infestation between July 2023 and December 2023.
  3. The landlord said it attended the repair of the water tank in the loft and had raised a works order for the base of the tank to be replaced. It confirmed there was no link that the damage to the water tank had been caused by the on-going pest infestation in the resident’s loft. The landlord awarded the resident £225 compensation which it said was for its handling of the resident’s complaint. It said its works coordination team would monitor and keep the resident updated in relation to all of the outstanding repairs at the property.
  4. In April 2024 the environmental health department advised the landlord that following its housing health and safety risk assessment (HHSRS) at the property, it had categorised the repair to the water tank in the resident’s loft as a category 2 hazard. They explained that the water tank was still leaking, and that there was an imminent danger that it would collapse and needed to be repaired.
  5. Between 24 April 2024 and 25 April 2024, the landlord’s pest contractor completed a clearance of the contaminated loft insulation at the property. The contractor also sealed the vents and completed a decontamination of the loft space. The pest contractor then recommended that the landlord carry out the following further works to eliminate the pest infestation at the resident’s property:
    1. Complete a drain survey as they previously recommended.
    2. Remove the ivy from the outside of the property.
    3. Lift all the surrounding paving blocks to investigate the burrows created by the pests gaining access to the resident’s property.
    4. Investigate the plumbing within the resident’s property.
    5. Mesh the eaves of the roof and loft space to the property.
  6. Between April 2024 and May 2024, the resident continued to chase the landlord to carry out the works to address the pest infestation and repair the water tank in the loft of the property. She also continued to chase her subject access request (SAR). On 24 May 2024 the resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord. She said its works coordination team had not communicated with her about the repairs as it had previously agreed to do in its final response dated 24 March 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s complaint about its communication whilst handling her outstanding repairs on 12 June 2024. It awarded the resident £50 compensation. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She requested the landlord escalate her complaint.
  8. In August 2024 the landlord’s contractors caused damage to the resident’s ceiling whilst carrying out repairs in the loft. The resident said that the same contractors also told her that they did not know how to carry out some of the works that had been recommended by the pest contractor in its report dated 24 April 2024. During the works these contractors discovered a void under the paving slab at the front entrance to the resident’s property. This had contained a nest and burrows that led deep into the damp proof course of the property which the contractors left overnight, returning the next day and filled with gravel and post concrete. On 13 August 2024, the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord for its handling of the outstanding repairs as referred to above. The resident asked the landlord to complete the outstanding works to a sufficient standard. She said this included carrying out a survey of the drains and to address the root cause of the on-going pest infestation at the property.
  9. On 2 October 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about its communication whilst handling the repairs at the property. The landlord accepted it had not communicated with the resident between 29 March 2024 and 2 July 2024. It awarded the resident £300 compensation in view of this.
  10. On the same day the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the on-going repairs at the property. The landlord said the outstanding works would be completed between October 2024 and December 2024. It apologised that its contractors had caused damage to the ceiling and that it had not carried out the drains survey as previously recommended. It awarded the resident £610 compensation.

 

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final responses to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman stating her desired outcome was for all of the outstanding works to be completed. She confirmed that the mesh had not yet been installed in the eaves of the roof, and within the loft space. There had also been no loft insulation within the property since April 2024.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Personal data and subject access request (SAR).

  1. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
  2. The resident has said that part of her complaint includes the landlord’s delays in it responding to her subject access request (SAR) regarding her personal data. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on matters involving alleged breaches of the data protection act. Complaints about issues relating to personal data falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further, then she can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

 

Scope of Investigation

  1. Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident first raised her reports to the landlord about a pest infestation at her property between December 2022 and January 2023. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord said it would not address that this period within its own complaints process. The landlord advised the resident this was because it had carried out repairs in July 2023 and that the resident had not raised another call for service about this matter until January 2024. The Ombudsman has taken the landlord’s decision into consideration. The Ombudsman accepts it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider that it was not aware of any further issues in respect of the pest infestation between July 2023 and January 2024. However, the Ombudsman has taken the view that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact of its repairs carried out between December 2022 and July 2023 in its complaints process. This was because this was an opportunity for the landlord to identify if there were any failings between December 2022 and July 2023 which impacted the continuing pest infestation at the resident’s property into 2024.
  3. Therefore, in line with the Scheme the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property between January 2023 to its final response provided on 2 October 2024.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repairs fall into the following categories:
  2. Emergency repairs – The landlord states this is a repair where it is necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident. It will respond to this type of repair within 24 hours. The landlord may need to make a further appointment to complete all remedial works following its initial attendance which it will complete as an appointed repair.
  3. Appointed repairs – The landlord states these are all non-emergency repairs for which it requires access to a residents property. These repairs will be carried out by an agreed appointment with the resident. The landlord aims to complete these types of repairs within 28 days.
  4. The landlord has stated that it does not have a separate pest management policy in place. The landlord addresses its responsibilities within its responsive repairs policy. This policy states that pests are usually the responsibility of the resident, and that the landlord will initially direct a resident to their local authority, environmental health, or local pest contractor. If a resident disputes responsibility, or if there are repairs resulting from a pest infestation, then the landlord will arrange for a surveyor to assess who is responsible for the repairs.
  5. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage one complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage one within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 written complaint response within 20 working days. It will discuss and provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. The landlord will then agree a timescale with the resident detailing when it will provide its complaint response.

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property.

  1. Between December 2022 and February 2023 the resident raised reports to the landlord of a pest infestation at her property. The resident had contacted a pest contractor and it provided a report which identified that the pests had access to the property via damaged air bricks and vents. Records reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the landlord raised these repairs in June 2023. It said it completed the works by 4 July 2023. The landlord took 6 months to carry out these repairs. This type of repair should have been completed within 28 days.
  2. On 4 January 2024 the resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord. She explained that the pests had returned to the loft within the property for the winter period to breed. She described that there were pest droppings covering the loft and damage had been caused to her personal belongings. She said that the pests were able to access the property due to the landlord not placing the wire grates over the vents as previously advised by the pest contractor. On 21 February 2024 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to carry out an inspection of the pest infestation at the resident’s property. It was not appropriate that the landlord took 49 days to raise this inspection. The Ombudsman has reviewed records that show that between 4 January 2024 and 21 February 2024 that the resident, and the environmental health department had chased for the landlord to follow up on these repairs. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
  3. On 28 February 2024 the landlord’s pest contractor carried out an inspection at the resident’s property. It raised a number of repairs as referred to above, for the landlord to address the pest infestation at the property. This was an appropriate response so it could identify the works it needed to carry out.
  4. However in March 2024, the resident said that when the landlord’s maintenance operative came to carry out some of the works identified, the operative admitted to not being aware of the pest contractor’s recommendations. The resident also said that the operative told her that they were not qualified to carry out the works recommended. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident about this. Where there is a lack of independent evidence to support the account made by the resident, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. However, the landlord should have investigated these concerns raised by the resident, including by speaking to the contractor about what they told the resident. The landlord should have then communicated its findings of the investigation with the resident and apologised if it did find that the contractor was not properly qualified. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns is evidence poor communication. We have considered this when assessing overall compensation for the landlord’s errors.
  5. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 24 March 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its delay in raising the repairs to address the pest infestation at the property. It was also positive that the landlord agreed to monitor the outstanding works and keep the resident updated. The landlord advised the resident that it would not cover costs of the damage to her personal belongings. The landlord said this was because it did not recommend that residents stored items in loft spaces and that residents do this at their own risk. This was not an appropriate response. This was because the landlord should have advised the resident to contact its liability insurer to make a liability claim if she believed that the damage to her belongings had happened due to its negligence in handling her repairs. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, and we would therefore not comment on its insurer or the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one is made. However, the landlord should have communicated that this option was available to the resident.
  6. In April 2024 the local authority’s environmental health department intervened and advised the landlord that it would consider taking legal action if it did not carry out the repairs at the resident’s property to a sufficient standard. This included removing and replacing the contaminated loft insulation which it said was a health hazard. Between 24 April 2024 and 25 April 2024 the landlord’s pest contractor removed the contaminated loft insulation, decontaminated the loft, and sealed the vents. It was appropriate the landlord carried out these repairs.

 

 

  1. However it should not have taken 113 days after the resident first reported that the loft insulation was contaminated. This type of works should have been completed within 28 days as per the landlord’s repairs policy, as set out above. The Ombudsman also understands that the landlord has not yet reinsulated the loft space. This is a significant delay, and the Ombudsman understands that this continued delay has exacerbated the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
  2. On 25 April 2024 the landlord’s pest contractor made a number of further recommendations as referred to above. These works were recommended in order to eliminate the on-going pest infestation at the property. Records reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the landlord raised a number of these repairs on 29 May 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen any reason it took the landlord 35 days to raise these further works. Therefore, this would be considered an unreasonable delay, although we acknowledged that this delay in itself was not excessive.
  3. On 12 August 2024 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to carry out some of the pest contractor’s recommendations. During this visit the contractor pierced 2 nails through the resident’s bathroom ceiling whilst attempting to fit mesh around the soil stack and within the eaves of the roof. The landlord then raised a repair to rectify the damage to the bathroom ceiling which it put right 73 days later, on 23 October 2024. The Ombudsman accepts that some repairs can be complex and may result in a mistake being made. However, it should not have taken 73 days to put it right for the resident. This mistake should have been rectified in line with the landlord’s repairs policy as set out above as an appointed repair and completed within no more than 28 days.
  4. During this same period, the resident said that she was left overnight with a small piece of wood covering a void directly beneath the front entrance to the property. This was after the contractors lifted up a concrete slab and discovered the void which contained a nest, and burrows related to the pest infestation. The damage caused by the pests went deep into the damp proof course of the property. The Ombudsman has seen a photo of the make-shift wooden plank provided by the contractor. This was not appropriate and proposed a risk to the resident who had young children. The landlord should have ensured the void was made safe and suitably covered over when leaving the resident overnight. If it was not possible to make the property safe that day it should have offered to pay for the resident to stay in a hotel for the night until the property could be made safe the next day.

 

  1. The evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord had removed the ivy and had investigated underneath the paving slabs outside of the resident’s property, in line with the pest contractor’s recommendations, by 30 October 2024. This was 6 months after the recommendations were made, and 5 months after the landlord raised a job to complete the works. This delay is significant, and the Ombudsman understands when the resident has said that this had exacerbated her frustration and inconvenience in the landlord’s handling of these repairs at that time.
  2. The landlord has said that it will aim to complete the works of putting up the mesh in the eaves, and around the guttering in February 2025. The landlord has explained the delays have been due to the significant costs involved and the specialist contractors needed to carry out these works. The Ombudsman understands that complex repairs can take longer to complete. However, the landlord’s target date to resolve the repair is 9 months from the date the works were recommended. This is a further significant delay which is not fully explained by the complexity and specialist nature of the work. The records reviewed by the Ombudsman also show that the landlord has failed to keep the resident updated about this aspect of the repair. This was not appropriate as the Ombudsman would expect landlords to keep residents updated about the repairs, especially where there are significant delays as in these circumstances. This is further evidence of poor handling of its repairs processes.
  3. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord has investigated the plumbing or carried out a drain survey as previously recommended by its pest contractor. The Ombudsman can only conclude that these works have not been completed and that this is unreasonable. The landlord has also failed to insulate the resident’s loft to date, which the Ombudsman understands cannot be completed until the proofing works to the eaves are completed. The resident has a young family, and the lack of insulation for such a significant period will have likely had an impact on the resident’s energy bills. Therefore the Ombudsman will recommend that the resident is compensated for any increased energy usage to heat her home from April 2024 until the landlord insulates the loft. This can be calculated by comparing the resident’s energy usage from the period from April 2023 to March 2024 with the current period up until the insulation is fitted.

 

 

 

 

  1. For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property. This includes the significant delays, poor communication during which the resident, her councillor, and the environmental health department had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions to carry out these works. Some of the repairs have also still not been completed. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s failings have adversely impacted the resident and her family.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. The Ombudsman has reviewed all of the landlord’s awards of compensation in respect of its handling of these repairs. The Ombudsman has calculated that between its 3 stage one and stage 2 complaint responses between 24 March 2023 and 2 October 2023 it awarded £710 compensation in respect of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property. This level of compensation is within the range the Ombudsman would issue in compensation in this case, based on the evidence we have seen. Therefore the Ombudsman will not raise the level of compensation in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It was positive that the landlord attempted to put things right by offering compensation, but the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord went far enough on this occasion because a number of repairs remain outstanding.
    1. Install the mesh around the eaves and guttering of the resident’s property in line with its pest contractor’s recommendations.
    2. Fully renew the insulation within the resident’s loft.
  3. The landlord needs to complete these repairs now in line with the timescales in its repairs policy. If it will need longer to complete the repairs then it should explain why, set an appropriate timescale and keep the resident and the Ombudsman updated until the repairs are completed.

The resident’s concerns about a leak coming from the water tank in the loft.

  1. On 14 January 2024, the resident raised an emergency repair stating that there was a leak coming from the water tank in the loft. The landlord’s contractor attended to make the repair safe that same day. This was an appropriate response, because the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy as set out above which states it will respond to this type of repair within 24 hours.

 

 

  1. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property the next day. The contractor told the resident that they needed to reattend on 16 January 2024 to carry out further works to the structure of the water tank. The contractor then failed to attend this appointment. It was not appropriate that the landlord arranged an appointment to carry out these follow up works and then failed to attend. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord or its contractor attempted to communicate with the resident about this missed appointment at that time. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs.
  2. The landlord raised a repair on 31 January 2024 for it to remove the rotted water tank base in the loft and put in a new one. It was appropriate that the landlord raised this repair to replace and secure the resident’s water tank. However, the repair was significantly delayed. Between January 2024 and March 2024, the resident and the environmental health department chased the landlord for it to respond to this repair. The resident said that the contractor who initially attended to the leaking water tank told her the repair needed to be carried out immediately, but she had heard nothing since. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 24 March 2024, it said it found no failings in its response to the repair of the water tank.
  3. The landlord failed to address in its final response to the resident’s complaint that its contractor had not attended the arranged follow up appointment on 16 January 2024. It also failed to address its delays in completing or communicating with the resident about the required follow up works to the water tank at that time. The landlord should have given the resident a timescale for when the remedial works to the water tank would be completed. This is further evidence of poor communication.
  4. The resident said she believed the damage to the water tank in the loft had been caused by the on-going pest infestation at her property, which has already been referred to in this report. The landlord advised the resident that there was no link between the leak of the water tank and the pest infestation. The Ombudsman is unable to determine if these 2 incidents were linked. However, it was reasonable that the landlord responded to the resident about this and explained its position.
  5. On 4 April 2024 the environmental health department intervened and told the landlord it would consider taking legal action if it continued to fail to address the repair to the water tank in the resident’s loft. It advised the landlord that the resident’s water tank was still leaking and there was imminent danger of collapse. The landlord agreed to complete the repairs to the water tank by 24 April 2024.
  6. Records reviewed by the Ombudsman show that the landlord did not complete the repair of the water tank by this date. The evidence also shows that during this period the landlord also failed to communicate with the resident on the reason for the further delay, or when it would complete the repair. The Ombudsman understands that this further delay exacerbated the resident’s frustration and inconvenience at the landlord’s handling of this repair.
  7. Between April 2024 and May 2024 the resident continued to chase the landlord for it to carry out repairs to the water tank in the loft. The landlord completed this repair on 10 June 2024. This was 149 days after the resident first raised the repair to the water tank. This type of repair should have been completed within 28 days in line with best practice.
  8. The Ombudsman has reviewed that in the landlord’s records, some of its delays in carrying out the repairs to the water tank was because the landlord was waiting for parts. This may have been unavoidable but the landlord should have taken steps to make the water tank safe while it was waiting for the parts and there is no evidence it did so. The Ombudsman has not seen in any correspondence that this was shared with the resident. The landlord should have communicated the reasons for its delay with the resident. It should have then set out a timescale in which it would have been able to complete the repair, as it states it will do in its repairs policy, as set out above.
  9. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage and a leak coming from the water tank in the loft. This is because of the landlord’s overall excessive delays, and its poor communication whilst handling this repair.
  10. In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as referred to above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 in compensation. This reflects that the resident suffered significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s long delays and poor communication concerning a water tank which it knew to be unsafe and an immediate risk to safety.

The resident’s associated complaint.

  1. On 4 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states it will respond to a resident’s complaint within 5 working days.

 

  1. On 16 January 2024 the resident raised a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about damage and a leak coming from the water tank in the loft. The same day, the landlord said it was unable to provide a stage one complaint response at that time and would provide a response within a further 10 working days. It was reasonable that the landlord explained it needed further time to respond to the resident’s complaints. However, the landlord did not provide its stage one written complaint response 10 days later, as it had agreed. This is evidence of poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide a stage one complaint response within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). Where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint, this should not exceed a further 10 working days.
  2. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints on 24 March 2024. This was 57 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. This was also 49 days after the landlord had said it would issue its stage one complaint response. The resident said that she had not requested the landlord escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman understands when the resident stated she felt confused and frustrated at the landlord’s lack of communication when handling her complaint. The landlord should have communicated with the resident as part of its decision to escalate her complaint. This was so the landlord could understand the resident’s outstanding concerns, and so the resident had an opportunity to understand its processes.
  3. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint it said that it would not consider its handling of the resident’s pest infestation between December 2022 and July 2023, as part of its complaint response. The landlord said this was because the resident had not contacted it for 6 months after it carried out the repairs in July 2023, as referred to above. The Ombudsman does not consider this to have been a reasonable response. The Ombudsman accepts that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered in July 2023, that its contractors had fully addressed the repairs relating to the pest infestation. However, the circumstances in this case are that when the resident raised the matter again in January 2024, the pests had returned to the property for warmth and to breed during the winter months in the resident’s loft. Therefore, the resident also would have been unaware until this time that the landlord’s original repairs may not have been completed to the required standard and could have resulted in this further pest infestation. In this context, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed its initial handling of this original pest infestation 12 months earlier.

 

  1. On 24 May 2024 the resident raised a further complaint about the landlord’s communication by its works monitoring team. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 4 working days later. It then provided its stage one complaint response 10 working days later, on 12 June 2024. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy as set out above.
  2. On 12 August 2024 the resident requested the landlord escalate her further complaint. The landlord provided its final response to her complaint 38 working days later on 2 October 2024. This delay was not in line with the Code, which expects the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. Although the delay was not excessive in itself, it would have added to the resident’s frustration caused by the other delays in the landlord’s complaints, and repairs process.
  3. On 13 August 2024 the resident raised a third complaint about the landlord’s handling, and standard of works in addressing the pest infestation at her property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 5 working days later. It then provided its stage one complaint response 8 working days later, on 28 August 2024. On 5 September 2024 the resident requested the landlord escalate her further complaint. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s third complaint 20 working days later, on 2 October 2024. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s third complaint were appropriate because it carried them out in line with its complaints policy as set out above.
  4. There is evidence of failings as described above in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaints. This includes the landlord’s initial confusion in its first stage one response, and the delays in its responses as referred to above. The Ombudsman accepts that whilst these delays were not excessive, overall this still inconvenienced the resident, who was chasing, whilst waiting longer than she should have been for the landlord to respond to her complaints.
  5. The Ombudsman has reviewed all of the landlord’s awards of compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints. We have calculated that from March 2024 through to its final responses on 2 October 2024 that it awarded £425 compensation to the resident for its complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that this combined compensation in addition to its apology in its final responses to be a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.J. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s personal data and subject access request (SAR) is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak coming from the water tank in the loft.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A senior member of staff at the landlord, at director level or above is to apologise to the resident in writing. This apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the severe maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a pest infestation and related repairs at the property.
    2. Concerns about a leak coming from the water tank in the loft.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident the £1,185 it awarded the resident in its 3 stage one and stage 2 complaint responses between 24 March 2024 and 2 October 2024 unless this has already been paid.
  3. The landlord is to pay the resident £800 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak coming from the water tank in the loft.
  4. The landlord is to complete a survey of the plumbing and drains of the resident’s property as per its pest contractor’s recommendations unless it has already completed these works. It is then to confirm with the resident and the Ombudsman that these works have been completed. If follow up works are required it is to set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales, which it is to share with the resident in writing.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with all of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 5 weeks of this report.
  6. The landlord is to carry out the following works within 9 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Install the mesh around the eaves and guttering of the resident’s property in line with its pest contractor’s recommendations.
    2. Fully renew the insulation within the resident’s loft.
  7. The landlord should ensure these works are carried out by a suitably qualified contractor. The landlord is to then confirm with the resident and the Ombudsman that these works have been completed in writing.
  8. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to carry out a post inspection of its repairs to ensure they are completed to a sufficient standard in line with its pest contractor’s recommendations as set out in its report dated 25 April 2024. The landlord is to then confirm with the resident and the Ombudsman the results of this inspection in writing.

Recommendations

  1. Subject to the resident providing copies of energy bills for the relevant period, the landlord should calculate the increased energy usage for heating her property between April 2024 until it installs the loft insulation at her property. It is to then compensate that difference to the resident within 4 weeks from the date when the energy bills are provided.