Southern Housing (202341744)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341744

Southern Housing Group Limited

12 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a rodent infestation.
2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a form of assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. A tenancy was initially granted on a fixed term. The tenancy is of a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat within a building block.
Reports were made to the landlord in April and August 2023 of rodents inside the resident’s building and holes to the external brickwork. The landlord investigated using a pest control service and filled in an external hole.
On 7 December 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of a suspected mouse infestation affecting the block and his flat. He highlighted holes in the exterior walls and expressed concern that the landlord’s past maintenance and repair of the building did not resolve the issue. He explained that he was worried about health risks and requested urgent action.
The landlord’s pest control service completed investigations in December 2023 and early January 2024. It caught a mouse in the loft area. It advised the landlord that mice might be in the loft space.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord issued its first stage complaint response to the resident. It described taking steps to investigate rodents in the block and found that it was not responsible for any service failing. It advised that pest control within homes was a resident’s responsibility and suggested that he instruct a pest control company.
On 16 January 2024 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. He reported that rodent entry to his flat and the block was ongoing. He raised issue with the landlord’s upkeep of the building and described longstanding external holes that could be pest entry points.
On 8 February 2024 the landlord filled in some external holes to the building.
The landlord sent a final stage complaint response to the resident on 16 February 2024:
1. It described its cleaning regime for the block and a recent cleaning audit. It advised having checked the external areas of the block once a month.
2. It provided details from a report by its pest control contractor about investigations into mice in the block.
3. It updated the resident that it had filled in external holes on 8 February 2024 with the aim of preventing entry into the building.
4. It repeated advice that pest control in the home was the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord raised further repairs to fill in holes within communal areas in March and May 2024. It attended in August 2024 with the recorded aim of filling in holes. The landlord repaired a vent that had a missing cover. The resident told this Service that he continues to experience signs of an ongoing rodent infestation in the block, including noises.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the Scheme in use at the time of the resident’s complaint, this Service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally considered as within 6 months of the matters arising. The resident’s complaint was brought to the landlord in December 2023. He described prior reports raised to the landlord years prior. This Service has considered reports made to the landlord in 2023. The resident’s complaint was of a repeat and longstanding pest issue. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to extend the period by some months as important factual background.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a rodent infestation

The landlord supplied information to this Service in response to a request for records. However, important aspects of how it handled reports of mice had no associated records for example:
1. The landlord’s complaint response referred to completing external monthly checks. There is no contemporaneous record of these checks, detailing what it inspected or any findings.
2. The landlord’s responses to the resident relied on visits to the property to carry out inspections or works. Many of these had no associated record, even where the landlord described having obtained reports from its contractor.
3. Reference is made within complaint correspondence to conversations it held with the resident that have no separate record detailing what was discussed.
The landlord’s repair or maintenance records are very limited in detail. This prevented a thorough understanding of what it did or did not do. While the most recent status of any works raised is stated, its internal terminology is not consistently decipherable. Neither are the records clear on the detail of exactly what actions the landlord took.
The absence of certain records and the limited nature of others within the landlord’s information impacted this Service’s ability to more fully assess the landlord’s handling of the rodent reports. The landlord failed to maintain reasonable records.
Prior to the resident’s complaint, reports were made to the landlord of rodents in the building in April 2023. The landlord carried out investigations within a reasonable timescale, across April and May 2023. However, in response to a further report in August, it was 6 weeks before the landlord’s pest control service attended the property. Considering this was a repeat raised issue, that mice had been observed in multiple areas of the building and the associated health risks, 6 weeks to begin investigations was an unreasonable delay.
Neither the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, nor its guidance for dealing with pests had a guideline timescale for it to begin investigations. However, when logging each rodent report, the landlord set a target date of 3 months. This target timescale was repeated regardless of the number of recurrences and across the period of the complaint. In the absence of any contrary evidence, it appears that this was the landlord’s standard target timescale for dealing with pest concerns.
This Service recognises that the nature of pest infestations may require multiple attempts to diagnose or treat the issue effectively. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to anticipate that a landlord would, as a matter of course, begin this process within a timely manner. The landlord’s lack of a reasonable target timescale to start investigations did not support a consistently timely response to rodent reports.
The landlord’s pest guidance noted that mice and rats spread disease and risk damage to property, including electrics. There is no record showing that the landlord considered any risks to the resident’s household in response to reports of rodents in the building. The lack of any evidenced consideration of potential harm is of particular concern when the reports were repeated. The landlord’s guidance and its repairs policy did not support the landlord to adopt a risk-based approach. Neither document made provision for it to consider any potential health or other risks posed to residents from pest infestations. Its policy did require that it consider potential impacts to those living with existing vulnerabilities, but not general risks posed by the nature of the issue reported.
The resident’s complaint of 7 December 2023 was the third recorded report made to the landlord of rodents in the building within 8 months. The landlord took timely steps in response to further investigate the presence of mice through its pest control contractor in December 2023 and in January 2024. It filled in some external holes.
The landlord’s specialist contractor informed it that a mouse had been found within the loft area that it described as ‘communal’ and advised that mice might be present in the loft space. There is no evidence that the landlord took any proactive steps to explore this further. For example, there is no record showing that the landlord entered or sought any access necessary to enter this space, to conduct investigations into further eradication or potential points of entry. This was an area of the building outside of the resident’s access or control.
There is no clear evidence that the landlord investigated how the rodents which had been reported to it, and confirmed by its pest service, had gained access. While the landlord filled some holes, there is no evidence the landlord completed a full inspection of the building to identify all potential points of entry. Holes continued to be identified after each report made to the landlord. Considering the repeat nature of the reports, it is reasonable to anticipate that the landlord would identify the need for a systematic investigation of the whole area into all potential causes, points of entry and any available responsive actions. The need for such a precautionary and thorough approach became increasingly compelling as a pattern developed. The landlord’s pest control guidance or repairs policy did not support the landlord in guiding a systematic approach to investigation in line with this Service’s pest control guidance.
The landlord said in its complaint response to the resident that its neighbourhood manager had advised that external areas of all blocks were checked once a month. It has supplied no records of these visits to understand what, if any, checks were completed to the external structure.
The landlord’s first stage complaint response acknowledged that rodents might be present in the building, but suggested this was the resident’s individual responsibility and that he take private action. This Service published guidance for landlords on how to handle reports of pests. It advised against a landlord placing the onus on a resident to sort the problem. While it is recognised that a resident may have a role to play, a landlord’s response should recognise that there may be other root causes, and a full investigation is necessary before responsibility is determined.
The landlord had no evidence to suggest that there were any matters within the control or power of the resident that had caused the mice. Its records did not show a thorough investigation of all areas within its own control or responsibility. The onus it placed on the resident’s responsibility in these circumstances was unreasonable.
The tenancy agreement set out the landlord’s contractual responsibility to the resident to take reasonable care to keep shared areas in reasonable repair. Any defects to the structure of the building, for example holes, or drains or pipes were required to be repaired by the landlord in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and within a reasonable period of time. The landlord was also responsible, by operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness. Pests are a category of prescribed hazard in recognition that an infestation can spread disease and present a risk to health.
Although the resident raised concerns about external defects, and the landlord’s legal responsibilities were relevant to assessing its handling of rodent reports, it did not address these matters in its complaint responses. This was unreasonable, and the landlord failed to consider matters of significance and to address the resident’s concerns directly. This prevented the landlord learning from how it might have adopted a more thorough or joined up approach and importantly, whether any delay to remedial works lead to the resident and his household encountering the effects of rodents.
The landlord’s reliance on the resident’s responsibility in the absence of any review its own responsibilities caused the resident distress. The resident described considering the landlord’s response as ‘hard line’. The absence of empathy within the tone and content of its response or review of its own responsibilities contributed to this perception. The landlord’s responses showed no recognition or empathy for the impact to the resident and/or his household.
The landlord’s complaint response suggested it was only able to appoint a surveyor to inspect a potential infestation inside the resident’s flat if he first obtained his own pest control report. This position failed to recognise or consider that the landlord’s repairing and fitness for habitation obligation may have required investigation into defects that fell within its duties.
This Service noted that outside of the updates contained within the landlord’s complaint responses, it did not communicate with the resident about the investigations or findings in the block. While this was a communal area and not within the confines of his flat, the landlord was aware that the matter was of significant concern to him and linked to an issue affecting his home. There is no reason apparent from its records that prevented the landlord providing any form of update, however brief. The absence of any recorded update outside of the complaint response was a failure of reasonable communications.
The landlord in its complaint response did not identify or acknowledge that it was responsible for any failings. While its delay investigating reports of rodents from August 2023 was not significant, its lack of thorough building inspections had greater impact. This caused the resident to be put to time and trouble re-reporting external defects as the landlord conducted piecemeal repairs. Although it is appreciated that tackling a mouse problem is not always a quick or easy fix, once a pattern emerged, the landlord’s failure to adopt a methodological approach to diagnosing the cause and all potential external entry points placed unfair onus on the resident. The landlord showed no focus on the distress or risks that could arise from a rodent infestation and its responses were unempathetic to the resident’s experience. These matters caused him distress.
The landlord is therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of reports of a rodent infestation.
It is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £300. This figure is line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in situations such as this where the identified failings adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings or offer any form of redress to put matters right. While it took limited responsive actions, it did not go far enough and it is not clear in any event that these resolved the issue.
The landlord previously updated this Service in December 2023 about wider changes it was considering to it communications in response to an order issued in a separate case, reference 202221560. The landlord said that it was undertaking a communication review with the aim of enhancing how it communicates with residents about communal repairs. Considering that we have found an absence of proactive communications in this complaint, the landlord is ordered to provide an update to this Service about the review.
The landlord’s policy and guidance do not support it to take all reasonable methodological steps to establish whether a potential infestation falls within its responsibility. The landlord is ordered to review its relevant policies and guidance associated with rodent infestations and consider whether these provide sufficient clarity to enable it to identify where issues may fall within its repairing and fitness for habitation obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident told this Service that before raising his complaint, he expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord by phone about its handling of rodent reports. He said that it guided him to wait for it to take steps to try to resolve the issue before progressing a complaint. This Service has seen no records of this conversation, however as noted above the landlord kept limited records of calls.
The landlord’s then complaints procedure detailed an ‘informal’ complaint process whereby it would try to resolve concerns without a formal response. The advice the resident says the landlord gave him is consistent with the landlord’s then procedure. This treatment of the resident’s concerns by the landlord was not in accordance with the provisions of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
This Service is aware that the landlord subsequently updated its complaints policy and procedure. Its updated process no longer provides for an ‘informal’ procedure that would be out of line with the Code.
Owing to the resident’s persistence, the landlord’s attempt at ‘informal’ handling did not delay the handling of his complaint. However, it did add to the time and trouble he incurred seeking to raise the issue. Even though the resident raised this issue within his complaint, this was not explored by the landlord.
The landlord is responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord failed to acknowledge its failing or that this had caused the resident additional efforts seeking to raise his complaint. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of its staff for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation. It is comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress, time and trouble relating to its handling of reports of a rodent infestation.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble relating to its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Provide an update to the Ombudsman of the communication review that was detailed within its December 2023 response to the wider order issued in case 202221560. The landlord is required to detail the findings and any identified or completed actions or plans relevant to how it communicates with residents about communal works.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to inspect the extent of all external parts of the building and communal areas including any common loft space to assess any defects that may be supporting rodents and what, if any, works, are available to treat and prevent recurring entry. The landlord is ordered to provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and to this Service.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this decision and in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence. The review should include consideration of any policy, procedure and guidance covering its handling of rodent infestations and whether these provide sufficient guidance to identify issues falling within its repairing and fitness for habitation obligations. The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation in May 2024 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. This included issues with its record keeping, the provision of timescales for repairs, assessment of risks and showing empathy. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes. Some of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted in the special investigation. As such, and as this complaint happened before the investigation, this Service does not make any wider order.