Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202106895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106895

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

31 May 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property.
2. Reports of ASB by the resident.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat in a block. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
Section 4.14 of the tenancy agreement states that “if you live above ground floor level or above a basement you must obtain written permission from the Association before laying down any kind of hardwood, laminate or similar flooring. If you make an improvement or alteration to your property without our permission, the Association may request that you return your property to how it was before. You will be liable for any damage caused as a result of unauthorised works”.
Section three of the landlord’s pest control policy states if it is apparent that an infestation is caused by disrepair or lack of action on the part of the landlord, then it will take full responsibility for carrying out repairs and treating the infestation, regardless of the pest.
Section five of the landlords ASB policy states residents must not commit, or allow their family or visitors to commit, acts of ASB towards other residents, people in the local area, the landlords staff or contractors. If ASB arises, it may lead to action being taken against them. In cases where the issue is a neighbour dispute (where there is no harm committed), the landlord will with consent, refer them to independent mediation. If this option is rejected by the resident/s then the case will be closed.
Section 10 of the landlords ASB policy states – Enforcement could involve issuing warning letters or considering legal action where there is enough evidence of a tenancy, licence or lease breach. Eviction is only considered either in exceptional circumstances or where all other interventions have failed or where the ASB is so significant that only a claim for possession is suitable.
Section three of the landlord’s complaint policy states: “Neighbour disputes and a problem that you have known about for over six months unless it relates to tenant safety e.g. health and safety or safeguarding are not consider complaints”.
Section five of the landlord’s complaint policy states the first stage is the official complaint, it will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and issue the response within 10 working days.
Section six of the landlord’s complaint policy states the second stage of the complaint process is internal review and this must be requested within 14 days of the official complaint response. The internal review response will be conducted by an executive director and will be issued within 20 working days. Before a final decision is made, in relation to the internal review, it will let the resident know its position and give the resident an opportunity to respond to the findings before formally issuing its decision.
Section four of the landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation is a payment that it will offer customers in certain situations and when an apology alone is not good enough, for example where there have been unreasonable delays against published service standards and policies. Where the resident experiences distress of inconvenience, following a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. This includes cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment.
Section 10 of the landlord’s compensation policy states it maintains liability insurance to cover instances where a customer suffers loss or personal injury due to our negligence. It will involve its insurer in all personal liability claims, whether settled in court or otherwise, and will take guidance from its insurer on the extent of its responsibilities when investigating any claim.

Scope of the Investigation

At the time of the complaint the resident stated to the landlord she had pest infestation issues at her property that had been happening for two years starting in 2019. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its 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.” The landlord’s own complaints policy advises similar. This reflects that the longer the time goes on, the more the landlord and this Service’s ability to conduct an effective investigation is impacted. There is no evidence of a complaint being made by the resident in 2019. This investigation therefore mainly focuses on February 2020 onwards and the landlord’s consideration of matters from this point as this is the first recorded evidence regarding the pest issues.
The resident has stated to this Service she was not satisfied with the landlords handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. There is evidence the resident reported ASB from her neighbour to the landlord and the landlord responded to these reports. There is also evidence the resident complained about the landlords handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour in correspondence sent by her MP to the landlord.
There is no evidence this was considered by the landlord as part of the landlord’s complaint process therefore this Service cannot consider the landlords actions regarding this element of the resident’s complaint but can consider this as part of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of events

On 19 February 2020 the landlord’s repair records show a pest control visit request was logged by one of its neighbourhood officers as it was reported that there was an infestation in the resident’s property and mice were chewing through the walls. There were mice droppings in the property. The landlord’s records show this job was marked as completed on 4 Sep 2020 however no further information has been provided by the landlord confirming what works were caried out and reasons for the length of time for the works to be completed.
On 3 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say a mouse infestation at her property had got to the point she was unable to sleep as a mouse was in the front room and got into her bed. The resident stated the landlord’s pest control had only put in black boxes around the property which had not affected the mice. It is not clear from the landlord records when these black boxes were placed in the property.
On 6 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was currently staying at her grandmother’s house due to mice droppings being in her property and being advised by a pest control officer to not clean them up so he could see where the droppings were coming from.
A letter was sent to the resident by the landlord on 14 October 2020 stating it had received reports of nuisance behaviour by the resident including running loudly up and down communal stairs, shouting outside the property, laying laminate flooring without adequate underlay and leaving rubbish in the communal areas of the property. The landlord requested it discuss the allegations with the resident.
The landlord spoke with the resident over the telephone on 21 October 2020. The resident stated she had put in laminate flooring as it was better with children and her previous carpets had been ruined by the pest infestation she was experiencing. The resident stated she had put down rugs and asked for funding for carpets.
On 19 November 2020 the landlord made a referral to an independent organisation for mediation between the resident and her neighbour who had reported the ASB.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 November 2020 to ask if the mediation organisation had made contact with her regarding the mediation. The resident responded the same day to say they had but she felt the noise issues were due to her being overcrowded and was more to do with the landlord refusing to help her move.
On 3 December 2020 the organisation conducting the mediation wrote to the landlord to inform it the neighbour was interested in pursuing mediation however, the resident had declined. It also stated the neighbour was not interested in having a next steps meeting and it had closed the case.
On 13 January 2021 the landlord issued a letter to the resident and stated it had written to her on 14 October 2020 regarding reports of noise due to the laying of laminate flooring at the property, and it had received more reports of noise since it last wrote to the resident. The letter stated the resident had breached section 4.14 of her tenancy by installing laminate flooring without permission. The letter asked the resident to rectify the flooring by 13 February 2021 or eviction proceedings could take place.
On 26 January 2021 the resident spoke via a phone call with the landlord regarding funding for carpets and was worried about the letter issued to her. The landlord’s records showed it was making applications to help fund carpets for the resident.
On 25 February 2021 the landlords’ repairs records show an inspection request was raised by the neighbourhood housing officer as the resident had advised that there were mice in the property and holes in the attic.
The resident completed an online complaint form on 28 February 2021 stating she was told by her housing officer that a number of reports were received about her children playing and the lack of adequate flooring in her property. The resident stated:
1. Her previous housing officer had said the laminate flooring was satisfactory.
2. Since the letter in October 2020, she had made requests to the landlord for help with costs towards a carpet or referral to a charity or agency for assistance.
3. She had been sent a letter on 13 January 2021 stating she had been non-compliant and in breach of her tenancy which needed to be rectified by 13 February 2021 or eviction proceedings would take place.
4. She had been contacting the landlord for help and it was distressing to be threatened with evictions during a national lockdown.
5. She had been suffering with pest infestation (mice) for the past two years with no action or outcome from the landlord. The mice had destroyed an inflatable bed, sofa and children’s toys but the issue still remained unresolved.
6. She had a neighbour who was a hoarder and the flats had no fire escape
On 1 March 2021 the landlord’s complaints team emailed the resident and stated the issue was not covered under its complaint’s policy and was currently being addressed by her neighbourhood officer and had been passed to their manager to review. In the response the landlord did not specify which of the complaint points it was referring to.
The resident completed another online complaint form on 2 March 2021. The resident stated her neighbour was leaving her abusive and antisocial behaviour notes.
The landlord’s records note that there had been four applications made for carpets for the resident to different charities.
The landlord’s repair records show a visit to the resident’s property regarding the pest control report was carried out on 4 March 2021.
Between 31 March 2021 and 5 May 2021 there is evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the resident’s MP, in this correspondence the landlord stated to the MP:
1. It had written to the resident over the laminate flooring to restore adequate flooring to the resident’s hallway and bedroom by replacing the laminate flooring with carpet and underlay by 13 February 2021.
2. It had referred the resident to its debt and welfare team for assistance from charities to fund carpets
3. An order was originally raised for the pest infestation with its contractor on 25 February 2021. The contractor advised it had difficulty making contact with the resident but following their first inspection on 4 March 2021, the contractor advised that once the treatment was completed, proofing works would need to be carried out. A visit was arranged for 16 April 2021 and were advised that the resident was not at the property. The contractor would try again to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for the treatment to be carried out. Once the final inspection had been carried out, it would arrange for the proofing works to take place
On 10 May 2021 the landlord’s records state it had a phone conversation with the resident and offered to lay carpet in the resident’s property.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her it had received an MP enquiry and would be dealing with the mice infestation as a formal complaint under its complaint procedure and the other matters raised would be addressed in the MP enquiry
The landlord responded to the MP on 12 May 2021 to say:
1. The pest control infestation would be answered as a complaint, and the resident would have the appropriate escalation rights if she was not happy with the complaint response.
2. The resident did not agree to participate in mediation to address the antisocial behaviour.
3. It had decided to carpet the resident’s flat to reduce the noise transference and on 10 May 2021 the neighbourhood officer spoke to the resident about the carpet and the resident had advised she did not wish to remain in the property due to other outstanding repairs that are required but it had raised repair orders for these repairs.
On 17 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint about her neighbour being abusive by leaving aggressive notes in the communal areas. The landlord responded on 25 May 2021 to say a neighbourhood housing officer would contact the resident within 12 working days regarding the issues reported.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property for pest infestation works. The contractor informed the landlord the resident was not at the property but had spoken with her and was told by the resident they would be able to inspect the property but refused works as she wanted the landlord to conduct a survey of the property. The inspection did not take place, and the landlord agreed for a follow up appointment to be made.
The landlord’s records show it tried to contact the resident later that day on 24 May 2021 and on 2 June 2021 but was unable to make contact with the resident. An email was also sent to the resident to make contact for the booking to be made.
The resident emailed her MP on 25 May 2021 and stated she was putting in complaints about her neighbour and was not getting any responses from the landlord regarding the issues and had not had a response from the complaint made about abusive notes or treating her complaints as official complaints.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint about its handling of pest infestation on 26 May 2021. In the complaint response it stated:
1. A job was raised in 2019 to treat the communal area and the loft only. Following completion, the landlord’s contractor did attend and filled in the holes within the communal area. Another job was raised in 2020 to specifically treat the resident’s flat, and recommendations were made that holes under the bath needed to be filled in, large cracks in the kitchen under the units needed to be filled in as well. In the back of the cupboard next to the kitchen there were large gaps at the back that also needed to be blocked.
2. Having reviewed the repair history, it established the repair request raised in 2020 was not registered and for this reason the problem was reoccurring, and this was due to an error by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this error and apologised to the resident.
3. Its records showed a pest control order was raised with its contractor on 25 February 2021. The contractor advised that they had difficulty making initial contact with the resident. Following the pest contractor’s first inspection on 4 March 2021, they advised that once the treatment was completed, proofing works would need to be carried out. A visit was arranged for 16 April 2021 and the landlord understood the contractor was unable to access the property. The contractor subsequently contacted the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for the treatment to be carried out. It had also been noted that its housing advisor contacted the resident and arranged for follow on works to be undertaken.
4. It appreciated the resident’s concerns regarding the neighbouring property potentially adding to the pest issue by hoarding or further holes giving access to the pests. It assured the resident that it had arranged for its contractor to contact the neighbour and arrange for an inspection.
5. It clarified that for damage to any personal belongings, such issues are treated as a liability claim outside its complaints process and explained that any offer concerning the liability claim would be in addition to the compensation offer made.
6. It offered the resident compensation of £100 for service failure delays and £50 for service failure in the quality of service.
On 1 June 2021 the resident wrote to her MP to dispute the findings of the stage one response stating that:
1. The landlord had not attended the property since 2019 regarding the mice issues to investigate or complete repairs.
2. Holes were not filled in the communal area as mice were not affecting the block.
3. The resident had a good relationship with the contractor and disagreed with the landlord stating the contractor had difficulty making contact with her.
4. Once works were complete the landlord made no attempt to make any contact regarding any of the repairs and it was only when she started making complaints regarding how her neighbour was living that they started to respond.
5. The landlord records of attempted pest infestation repairs were incorrect, the landlord had not adequately addressed the fire escape concerns and stated she should not have to use a liability claim instead of direct compensation.
6. Requested to be rehoused into a safer environment and decent standard of living and compensation for items damaged in the property from the pest infestation.
7. The landlord allowed antisocial behaviour to continue against her and failed to investigate her complaints.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident regarding the notes left in the communal area. The landlord acknowledged the notes from the neighbour were not acceptable and requested the resident call the landlord back or provide a convenient time for a telephone call.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 4 June 2021 to schedule an appointment and informed the landlord it was told by the resident that she was in the process of dealing with this with the landlord and the MP, she was waiting on a response and until she received a response she did not want to go ahead with the works.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord issued a letter to the resident about her ASB reports. In the letter the landlord:
1. Agreed the notes left for the resident were unacceptable and it had spoken to the neighbour and warned them about their behaviour.
2. Stated the issues raised regarding overcrowding were not reasons that would facilitate an urgent move. It stated it had many families living in overcrowded situations and provided the options available for overcrowded residents to try and move such as the council register or home swapper.
3. Advised the behaviour between both neighbours could not continue and would be a breach of both their tenancies and re–offered mediation.
4. Confirmed its offer from 11 May 2021 to lay underlay and carpet at the property to alleviate the noise complaints from her neighbour.
The landlord’s records show its contractor contacted it on 16 June 2021 and 21 June 2021 for an update about whether the pest infestation works could proceed. There is no evidence of a response being provided to the contractor.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord issued a letter to the resident referring to its offer to lay underlay and carpet to the property. The landlord asked that the resident comply with the proposed works to lay the carpet and underlay. The letter stated if the resident did not comply it would need to consider legal action. The landlord requested the resident respond by 30 June 2021.
The resident’s MP contacted this service on 25 June 2021 to state the resident had not received a response from the landlord regarding her request for her complaint to be escalated.
The landlord’s records show its contractor contacted the landlord on 30 June 2021 for an update what the next steps would be in relation to the pest infestation works it was to carry out. Later that day it informed the landlord that as it had no response from the landlord regarding the outstanding works it would close the job down.
We wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2021 requesting it respond to the resident within the next 10 working days.
On 2 July 2021 the landlord informed us:
1. It had emailed the MP on 29 June 2021 when notified by the resident that she was still waiting for a response from a communication sent to it on 1 June 2021.
2. The landlord said it had not received any communication from the MP on 1 June 2021 or around that time.
3. The landlord stated the MP’s office had confirmed they received the landlord’s last response which was sent on 12 May 2021, and it was waiting for the MP’s office to respond.
4. It had asked the MP’s office to resend the communication the resident referred to as it has not received it.
5. The landlord also asked the MP to confirm if the resident wishes to escalate her concerns about pest control to the next stage of its complaint process.
On 13 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had contacted the MP’s office directly with regards to correspondence the resident said was sent on 1 June 2021 that it had not received. The landlord said it would like to progress the pest related works and that it had previously contacted her to schedule an appointment for 20 July 2021. The landlord asked that the resident confirm when it would be convenient for its repairs team to contact her to arrange a suitable appointment date.
On the same day the landlord emailed us to say since its last email to this Service on 2 July 2021 it had:
1. Contacted the MP to ask him to resend the enquiry of 1 June 2021 to which the resident had referred.
2. It had received no response from the MP and called his office on 12 July 2021 leaving a voice message for someone to contact them and was waiting for his office to respond.
3. Confirmed it had sent the stage one response to the resident on 27 May 2021 and was trying to arrange for follow on works to take place but had not been able to arrange a convenient appointment with the resident.
4. As it did not receive contact from the MP’s office, it tried to contact the resident on 28 June 2021, 12 July 2021 and 13 July 2021, without success so have been unable to contact her about the concerns raised regarding ASB and the laying of carpets under the complaint procedure.
On 15 July 2021 we wrote to the landlord to request that the complaint be escalated to stage two. On 16 July 2021 the landlord informed this service that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two but stated that it may be a file review if the resident or MP did not make contact to explain reasons for the escalation request.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2021 to inform her it would escalate the complaint to stage two and would issue a response by 12 August 2021.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord emailed us to say since its response, the resident had not allowed it access to the property to complete the pest infestation repairs. It reiterated the resident had referred to an enquiry from her MP dated 1 June 2021 which it had not received.
On 26 July 2021 in an internal landlord email an officer stated it had not received the resident’s escalation letter but had spoken with the resident to confirm her reason for the escalation and confirmed it needed to issue its response by 11 August 2021.
On 27 July 2021 the MP wrote to the resident to inform her he had received the email she had sent to his office on 1 June 2021. The MP stated he did not realise that it needed to be forwarded on to the landlord. The MP apologised to the resident and confirmed the email had now been forwarded onto the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 11 August 2021, in the response the landlord stated:
1. It initially raised pest control works on 25 February 2021, but its contractor closed the job following four failed attempts to access the resident’s property. On 24 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord access was not provided due to outstanding repair issues. It offered a customer relationship manager to visit the property with the contractor if the resident felt this would help progress the works.
2. It explained that eviction proceedings were never started in relation to the noise complaint due to the laminate flooring, but the letters issued to the resident were to inform her of a breach of tenancy and attempt to offer a solution, and it had agreed to fund the installation of carpets to the property.
3. Its records indicated that it had not received any correspondence regarding the resident’s escalation request until the email contact from this Service on 15 July 2021. It subsequently contacted the MP’s office and following that contact, the letter was forwarded to the landlord from the MP’s office.
4. Its officer’s behaviour was appropriate, and no further action was required.
5. It only offered urgent moves for those whose life was in danger. Due to demand far outweighing supply, it was not in a position to offer urgent moves to many families, and it recommended that if the resident wanted to move that she seek advice via the Local Authority Housing Options service and Home swapper.
6. As per the Stage one complaint response, it insured the fabric of the building, not personal belongings and any damage to personal belongings would be treated as a liability claim outside its complaints process. The resident’s health related concerns could also be reviewed as part of a liability claim.
7. Having reviewed the case, it required the resident to work with it to progress the outstanding works required. It could evidence a number of occasions where it had tried to progress the works, and the resident had failed to engage. It was aware that the resident had raised concerns regarding another neighbour regarding hoarding and it would be dealing with that matter directly with them.
As part of the complaint response the landlord indicated the response issued was provisional and if the resident wanted to contest any points she should inform the landlord within five working days.
On 12 August 2021 the resident asked for 20 days to consider the stage two response and offer any additional points, which the landlord agreed to.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord’s record show its contractor visited the property and the repair record states they were advised by the tenant she did not wish for them to proceed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 September 2021 to acknowledge that it had received correspondence from the resident that day and would aim to issue the final stage two response by 21 September 2021. This service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s email from 7 September 2021.
On 1 October 2021 the landlord stated it had noted the resident’s comments regarding the stage two response, had reviewed the case and was happy with the response it had provided. The landlord stated:
1. It must have access to the property to complete the pest control works. It had tried to engage with the resident on numerous occasions to progress the matter, but the resident had failed to cooperate. Should the resident not allow reasonable access it may have no choice but to close the case.
2. It had agreed to install carpets to the resident’s home as a gesture of goodwill to reduce the noise transference in the property. It could not keep the offer open indefinitely should the resident not allow reasonable access.
3. The resident was in the correct banding for a home move but due to a combination of available properties and the waiting list meant it could not say when a move would happen.
4. It offered £25 in compensation for the delay in issuing the final response to the resident.

Post Complaint

The landlord has informed this service the resident was offered and moved to another of the landlord’s properties and this move took place in March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the residents reports of pest infestation.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The Ombudsman must first 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 then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’
The landlord’s repair records state that a repair was raised on 19 February 2020 and logged as completed on 4 September 2020. The repair records state this was categorised as a P3 repair which under the landlord’s repairs policy would be completed within 20 working days. The dates provided by the repairs records show this was logged as completed after 138 working days and was significantly above its target repair times.
The landlord in its stage one complaint response to the resident stated it acknowledged it had not carried out the pest infestation works it was required to complete and that this had caused the problem to reoccur. It reviewed its records and established that following a previous inspection of the property in 2020 a repairs request should have been raised but was not. The landlord did not make it clear in its complaint response the specific dates in 2020 it was referring to or if it is related to the repairs logged in February 2020. However, it made some efforts to resolve the problem. It apologised, acknowledged the failings that had occurred in not carrying out pest infestation repairs in 2020 and detailed the steps it had taken to address the pest infestation in 2021. In addition, the landlord stated the issues identified within its service had been raised with the areas of its service concerned to ensure lessons are learnt. It however did not confirm what the issues identified were and who they were raised with.
The landlord stated that it had raised an order with its contractor to carry out the pest control treatments on 25 February 2021, had difficulty making initial contact with the resident and although a visit was completed to the resident’s property on 4 March 2021 the landlord stated a subsequent visit for 16 April 2021 was unable to be completed due to not being able to access the property. We have seen in the repairs log the job was raised February 2021 and attended in March 2021 but no evidence to support the statement that on 16 April 2021 it was unable to gain access to the property. The landlord has not provided us with evidence of this visit being scheduled to take place.
The stage two response states the pest infestation job was closed after four failed attempts to access the property. The landlord has provided evidence of its contractor trying to access the property on 24 May 2021 and this access being refused by the resident until the landlord surveyed her property. It also tried to contact the resident on 2 June 2021 to enable an appointment to be made. There are differences between the information provided by the resident regarding their conversations with the pest contractors and what information the landlord states it received from the pest contractors. This includes her stating there were no issues with access to the property and the landlord stating there was. From the evidence provided the landlord did take some steps to access the property in May and June 2021 for the pest infestation works to take place and being refused access by the resident. However, following being unable to gain access from her, it has not demonstrated it took any further steps after June 2021 to resolve the situation or considered the resident’s reasons for not providing access.
The landlord provided a record to this Service of an attempted visit to the property on 24 August 2021 which stated the resident did not wish for the contractor to proceed. The record however states this was for general maintenance, and it is not clear if it is related to the pest control repairs.
The landlord offered compensation for the delays and quality of service which in line with its compensation policy was an appropriate action to take. The amount offered to the resident is not considered a reasonable amount based on the period of time from the initial repair request being logged on 19 February 2020 to the date of its stage two response on 11 August 2021 which stated the pest control works were still to be completed. This was a total of 374 working days that the resident had been experiencing the pest issue. Although it is acknowledged the landlord has stated this was in part due to not being given access to the property from May 2021.
In terms of the resident’s claim of damages to personal belongings, the landlord acknowledged this in its stage one and stage two responses and referred to the resident needing to make a liability claim. It would however have been appropriate for it to have initially considered whether its actions in failing to raise the repairs in 2020 may have contributed to any damage. If the landlord accepted that it had been at fault in failing to raise the repair orders this meant the infestation was ongoing into 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports about the resident

The landlord’s ASB policy states not all reports relating to behaviour that impacts on an individual can be deemed antisocial behaviour and gives examples including sounds of normal day to day living such as opening and closing doors or going up and down stairs. In cases where the issue is a neighbour dispute where there is no harm committed, it will with consent, refer the resident involved to independent mediation. If this option is rejected by residents then the case will be closed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2020 and requested it discuss with her the allegations of noise nuisance due to the laying of laminate flooring in her property and stated it discussed these allegations with her over the telephone on 21 October 2020. The landlord also referred the resident and neighbour for independent mediation in November 2020 to try and reach a resolution which was unsuccessful. Once informed by the mediation service of non-engagement by the resident and neighbour it closed the case in line with its ASB policy. The landlord took the appropriate steps in trying to initially resolve the noise reports it received about the resident.
After these steps were unsuccessful and further reports being received, the eventual decision to issue a letter to the resident informing her of the breach of tenancy was appropriate as the tenancy agreement clearly states a resident must obtain written permission from the landlord before laying down any kind of hardwood, laminate or similar flooring. The resident has stated her previous housing officer had not advised that there was a problem with the flooring but has not provided any evidence that they requested or was granted permission by the landlord to install the laminate flooring.
While this letter may have been upsetting for the resident to receive, it was an appropriate next step for the landlord to take. The landlord has shown since issuing the letter it did try and support the resident with its debt and welfare department in referring her for assistance with carpets and it eventually offered to pay for the carpets for her in May 2021 in a significant effort to resolve the situation.
The landlord took the required steps as per its ASB policy in dealing with the ASB reports against the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident completed an online complaint form to the landlord on 28 February 2021 and it responded on 1 March 2021 to say the issue was not covered under its complaints policy. Given that she had reported more than one issue in her complaint this response would have been confusing for her.
The resident’s MP had written to the landlord between March 2021 and May 2021 and had raised her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation, but it took until 5 May 2021 for it to state it would answer the resident’s pest infestation complaint as a complaint.
The landlord when responding to the resident stated it would be responding to the complaint about the pest infestation as a formal complaint but would be handling the other points raised by the resident as part of its response to the MP enquiry.
The resident in her complaint of 28 February 2021 referred to the pest infestation and receiving the tenancy breach letter about the laminate flooring. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of the laminate flooring in its stage one response on 26 May 2021 and the entire stage one response was regarding pest infestation. It did offer a response regarding the laminate flooring at stage two on 11 August 2021 where it stated it had never begun eviction proceedings, and it had offered to lay carpets in the property.
There were significant delays in the landlord providing both its stage one and stage two responses to the resident and it did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner. The resident completed an online complaint form on 28 February 2021 and the stage one response was issued on 26 May 2021. This was 60 working days after she complained and 50 working days more than the 10 working days stated in its complaint policy.
The stage two response was issued after a further 52 working days after the resident stated she first made the request to escalate the complaint on 1 June 2021. The landlord stated during the complaints process it did not receive the resident’s escalation request from 1 June 2021 as this had been sent to the resident’s MP who was acting on her behalf. The MP has confirmed he inadvertently did not send this request onto the landlord until 27 July 2021. However, the stage two response states the landlord had a phone conversation with the resident on 23 June 2021 which the landlord stated the resident wanted to escalate the complaint and listed the reasons provided for the escalation. Taking this date (23 June 2021) into account the response was issued 36 working days after the escalation request rather than within 20 working days stated in its complaint policy.
The resident did make further points to the landlord on 8 September 2021, and these were considered in its final response issued on 1 October 2021. However, as the landlord has not provided a copy of the letter, we are unable to consider if the landlord considered the comments raised by the resident. The landlord is required to keep records which includes all copies of its communications with its residents.
The resident has made reference in her communications with us about the landlord’s handling of her reports regarding the antisocial behaviour of her neighbour towards her. These reports were not registered as a service complaint by the landlord. These were considered as complaints about her neighbour and were dealt with under its ASB policy and through the residents MP.
The resident in her email to the MP on 1 June 2021 stated that she did not feel her complaints about ASB towards her were being taken seriously by the landlord or being acted upon. The MP confirmed this email was forwarded onto the landlord. The landlord in its stage two response did not acknowledge these concerns in its response to the resident as part of the complaints process.
It can sometimes be difficult for a landlord to consider what is to be a report of antisocial behaviour and the resident making a complaint about its service in handling the ASB reports. In this case the landlord considered the reports of ASB by the neighbour from the resident not to be a service complaint and instead dealt with it as an ongoing ASB issue as per its ASB policy. It is important though that it does not refuse to take a complaint if it is clear from the resident, they wish to make a complaint about how it is handling reports of ASB. The email sent by the resident on 1 June 2021 makes it clear she is expressing dissatisfaction about the service she is receiving from the landlord. There is no evidence provided by the landlord to show it attempted to discuss these concerns with the resident or respond to her complaint in its complaint responses to the resident.
The landlord did offer the resident £25 in the final response issued on 1 October 2021 for the delays in issuing the complaint response. Given the length of time the resident for the stage one and stage two responses to be issued this is not considered a reasonable amount of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB about the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged it failed to complete repairs in 2020 which caused the pest infestation to remain untreated. Once this was recognised by the landlord it stated it tried to put this right. It did try and arrange appointments with the resident and although the resident stated the access was not being granted the landlord has not provided evidence it was proactive in contacting the resident to discuss the access issues or her concerns regarding why she would not provide access.
The landlord responded appropriately to the reports of ASB about the resident. It investigated, followed its policy and used the tools available to it to try and reduce the ASB, such as mediation and the offer to install carpet at the property.
The landlord did not recognise the resident was making a complaint when the complaint was made on 28 February 2021. It failed to consider that the resident was making a complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB toward her on 1 June 2021. In its stage two response it stated it had already spoken to the resident about escalating the complaint on 23 June 2021. In its stage two response the landlord did not consider the impact on the resident and whether an additional award of compensation was appropriate for the delays that were experienced.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £200 for its for failing to raise repairs for the pest infestation in 2020 resulting in a prolonged period of time the resident had to live with the issue. This is in addition to the £150 previously offered.
Pay the resident £200 for its delay in acknowledging and providing full complaint responses to the resident’s concerns.