The Riverside Group Limited (202206656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206656

The Riverside Group Limited

31 January 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The conduct of a housing officer.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of asbestos at the property.
3. The landlord’s response to reports of pests within the property.
4. The landlord’s handling of her complaint.
The Service has also investigated the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

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 us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
We have not investigated the aspect of the complaint that relates to the conduct of a housing officer. This is because this was not included in the complaint that we consider the resident initially brought to the Ombudsman and that the landlord responded to at stage 2 in August 2022 and again on 15 January 2023. We do not therefore consider the landlord has had an opportunity to consider this part of the resident’s complaint. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The remaining complaint aspects have been investigated below. These are:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of asbestos at the property.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of pests within the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of her complaint.
4. The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Scope

The records show that during the events described below the resident began a disrepair claim against the landlord. The landlord claimed it had not been given access to the property and, following a court deliberation, a costs order was made against the resident. The disrepair issues did not form part of the formal complaint made to the landlord which exhausted its complaints process on 26 August 2022. Therefore, while this investigation has necessarily reviewed some of the records about disrepair, we have not made any findings against the landlord in relation to disrepair. We have, however, made observations about disrepair, where they relate to one of the main complaint issues; the landlord’s response to a possible pest infestation. We have, for instance, commented on how the landlord’s approach to disrepair may have had an impact on its response to the possible pest infestation.
The resident first contacted the Ombudsman in July 2022 about concerns in relation to a bird mite infestation and asbestos in the property. She also mentioned other concerns about her local council which would be matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. We explained that she would need to complete the landlord’s complaints process before we could investigate her complaint. On 2 September 2022 the resident informed us that the landlord had provided its final response to her complaint on 22 August 2022 and asked us to consider her complaint. We asked the landlord to provide us with a copy of its final response to the complaint. However, there was some confusion over which complaint the resident was referring to. Initially the landlord sent us a copy of its stage 1 and 2 responses to a complaint about a replacement door. The resident informed us that this was not the complaint she wanted us to investigate. After further enquiry, we have been sent the landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint, which was dated 26 August 2022. However, as the landlord did not initially send that response to us, and as it reviewed its 26 August 2022 response in a different complaint response in January 2023, we have decided the final response was in January 2023 and have focused our investigation on the issues addressed in both the 26 August 2022 and 15 January 2023 responses.
Due to date errors, when this Service asked the landlord to provide evidence, some of the information provided contained other complaint responses. It contained evidence of activity that occurred after what we consider to be the third and final response in relation to this complaint, in January 2023. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report. Where it provides clarity on activity within the scope of this report, it is noted.
The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her and her family’s health. The Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Such claims must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in January 2009 and she lives in the property with her 2 children. At the time the resident first brought a complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, in January 2023 the landlord noted that the resident had vulnerabilities. The records show that the landlord made safeguarding referrals for the resident in April 2022 and that the resident told the landlord she had a mental health history in May 2022. In August 2022 and at other times during the course of events, the resident told the landlord that the issues with the property and the landlord’s response to her complaints, was causing her mental health to deteriorate.
The tenancy agreement the landlord has given the Ombudsman is not signed by the resident. However, the landlord says it is a version of the agreement the resident signed. It sets out that the resident has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of her home. However, the resident is obliged, by the terms of the tenancy, to allow the landlord’s staff and contractors access to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs or improvement work to the property.
It further sets out that it is responsible for the repairs of the internal walls, skirting and doors of the property. It says if the landlord fails to carry out certain qualifying repairs within a specified period, and if that failure is likely to jeopardise her health, safety and security, the resident is entitled to compensation up to a maximum of £50.
The landlord also operates a financial redress and compensation procedure. In cases where the resident has suffered severe long-term impact, inconvenience or distress, it says it will award £700 and above. In cases where it considers its failures have caused low impact distress, it can consider awarding up to £250.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy. It says it aims to meet the repair obligations enshrined in the tenancy agreement and as set out in law. It says it will attend emergency repairs within 12 hours. Both exposed asbestos and rodent infestations are considered to be emergency repairs. It says it will complete either a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 12 hours of the repair being reported. It says if it does this, it will then return to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
It says it will attend to routine repairs within 28 days. If it is unable to gain access to carry out repairs and the integrity of the property, its fabric and or the safety of the resident or those at the property is compromised, it will take “appropriate action” to gain access to carry out repairs. It warns that this may include but is not limited to obtaining an injunction for access. It says it may pass on to the resident the costs incurred from taking such action.
The landlord does not have a pest control policy. However, it has provided us with a framework for pest control products and services. This is a document inviting contractors to tender for providing the landlord’s pest control services. Its return date for submissions was dated 26 July 2018 and it set out the expectations for any successful bidder. These included meeting any relevant regulatory requirements. The document sets out that for rodent/pest activity, it was expected that a minimum of 2 follow up visits would be required per week and the activity would not be considered to have been eradicated until at least one clear visit had been reported.
On the landlord’s website, it says that if a pest problem has been caused by a problem with the design or fabric of the building – for example a hole in the brickwork – it is its responsibility and it will deal with the issue “…as quickly as possible” and meet all costs.
However, it says if the problem was not caused by the design or fabric of the building, it is the resident’s responsibility to resolve. It says it will provide advice and signposts to local councils.
Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 places a duty on landlords to review housing condition and identify any hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies asbestos as 1 of 29 housing hazards. Under the HHSRS, the landlord needs to identify the location of any asbestos in the property, assess its vulnerability to damage and identify any current damage or potential fibre release. Where a hazard is identified, it is classified as Category 1 (being a serious and immediate risk to health or safety) or 2 (a less serious or urgent risk). The landlord must take enforcement action in relation to any Category 1 hazards.
The landlord has an asbestos management plan. It applies to domestic properties to the extent of asbestos identification and control measures during maintenance and any refurbishment works that are undertaken. It says it has a proactive approach to risk identification, reduction and control.
The general duties in Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 apply to domestic properties managed by landlords. This means that landlords have a duty to protect their tenants from any risks from work activities being carried out in their homes. Where work being done involves asbestos-containing materials then the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 will also apply. These regulations require that a risk assessment is carried out before any work is started to see if asbestos is present and to ensure that appropriate precautions are taken to deal with any asbestos identified.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy has adopted the Ombudsman complaint handling principles. It says it aims to resolve matters as quickly as possible, seeking to put things right where there has been a service failure. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says an officer aims to contact the resident by telephone by 5pm on the next working day after receipt of the complaint. It aims to respond and put complaints right within a period which should not exceed 10 working days without good reason. At stage 2, it aims to acknowledge the escalation within 2 working days and aims to provide a response within a maximum of 10 working days from the request to escalate. It says this could be extended in exceptional circumstances.
The landlord says the first time it became aware of a bird mite issue at the property was on 19 January 2022.
The local council’s environmental health department (the council) informed the landlord that tests had revealed there were bird mites at the property. It had visited in December 2021 and laid insect monitors around the property after the resident complained of being bitten. The council said the laboratory had advised that “…bird and/or rodent control is essential in dealing with these group of mites.” It suggested that treatment should consist of finding the source of the infestation and, if possible, removing nesting material, followed by treatment of any vacated harbourages with a suitable residual pesticide.
It also said that repairs needed to be undertaken at the property to prevent the issue arising again in the future.
Upon receipt of the report the landlord member of staff thanked the council and said she had attempted to contact the resident but had had no success as yet.
In a report that was prepared for a member of staff, it was noted that on 21 January 2022, the landlord had “…received report from Environmental Health advising bird mites have been located in the property.” It began the process for arranging an inspection.
Another internal email stated that the landlord arranged a bird mite inspection with an independent company on 2 February 2022. It reported that the resident had refused access saying that her solicitors would be in touch. It said it had re-arranged an appointment for 16 March 2022 but did not hear further from the resident. It said it could not therefore gain access for this appointment either.
On 28 March 2022, following a complaint made by the resident against the council, the council told the resident that the landlord had agreed to carry out the relevant treatment. However, it said it understood the resident would not allow access.
An internal note from the landlord said that “we are only carrying out the [bird mite] survey due to the [council] survey finding bird mites present and until we have our own survey we cannot comment.”
The Ombudsman asked the landlord why it considered it necessary to undertake a further survey at the property, having already received laboratory test results from the council. It said “…the local council environmental report was information and was not in relation to the property, we were advised by the local council not to share this information with the customer and conducted our own report with an independent contractor.” The council also advised the landlord that its social care team would advise the resident of the findings.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord sent the resident a letter saying it had arranged a bird mite survey for 9 May 2022, when it did gain access. It also arranged an asbestos survey for 20 April 2022.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord’s records reported that there was an ongoing disrepair case and that the resident had been refusing access, although had said that she would grant access for the survey on 20 April 2022. It was noted that the landlord had been speaking to the resident “…on a daily basis” and that safeguarding referrals had been made.
The asbestos survey reported that no asbestos materials were positively identified. On 22 April 2022 the resident complained that the survey did not air test for asbestos.
On 6 May 2022 the resident again complained that the survey did not air test for asbestos. She said that airborne fibres could create follicle cancer and she wanted the airborne test to be completed as soon as possible. She said her children suffered from asthma and felt that the landlord was “…playing with our lives.”
On the same date the resident emailed the landlord to say she had received a letter from the landlord’s legal department asking her to provide access to the property. The landlord explained that this was “…due to [the] disrepair case as she contacted her own solicitors.” It explained that she must give access to allow the independent pest contractor into the property.
The resident also informed the landlord that she had been referred to hospital after a dermatological appointment, presumably concerned with the issue with bird mites. She noted that the landlord had made an appointment on 9 May 2022 about the bird mite infestation and said that the only reason she had been refusing access was because she wanted to have legal representation as she felt she had been ignored for over 2 years, which she said had led to a mental breakdown.
On 11 May 2022 the landlord recorded that it had told the resident it had sought advice from the asbestos team because of her concerns about the decision not to complete an airborne test. It said the advice was that as there was no asbestos at the property, “…the likelihood of the asbestos being in the air is zero.”
On the same date the records show that a pest inspector visited the property and informed the landlord that the resident would need to clear the property upstairs before he could leave traps there.
On 24 May 2022 the landlord reported that the resident said she did not want a skip to put her belongings in so that the area could be cleared for a pest inspection. She wanted the money that the landlord planned to spend on a skip to be spent on airborne asbestos tests instead.
Notes on the landlord’s systems on 25 May 2022 say that the resident had told the landlord it had until 26 May 2022 to respond to her complaint (“…in line with our guidelines.”). The landlord noted that it told the resident it could not resolve her complaint until it had the results from the relevant surveys (presumably on asbestos and pests). A note on the landlord’s system said that the landlord had extended the complaint deadline so that the resident “…would have to ensure that she clears the property.”
On 25 May 2022 the landlord reported internally that it had now been given access to the property by the courts. It noted the court had granted an access injunction and awarded costs against the resident. The injunction, dated 23 May 2022, ordered that the resident must allow the landlord or any of its authorized agents to enter the property on 24 hours written notice to inspect the condition or use of the property and then to carry out repair service or improvement works. The landlord reported that it would now be able to “…complete all outstanding repairs.” The records show it emailed the resident on this date to arrange a skip to clear the property, asking her what a convenient date would be.
On 27 May 2022 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the court costs. The landlord recorded that it told the resident “…if she allowed access all issues could be resolved.” It was noted that a second appointment was booked, with the resident’s agreement, for a pest contractor to visit on 2 August 2022.
On 31 May 2022 the resident told the landlord she had been referred to hospital because of a dermatological condition. She also said she had heard nothing from the pest company. She said she was surprised that this survey was being completed as the council had already completed a survey. She asked “…why are we going round in circles while my family are in crisis.” She again stressed that she felt an airborne asbestos survey should be completed.
The landlord responded that it had visited her property and left a card on 27 May 2022 to ask that the resident made contact about arranging a date for a skip to be dropped off. It said that its pest control company had said that it would be helpful to clear the property before insect monitors could be put down. However, it said the resident had not made contact to arrange this, even though it had been trying to arrange a skip with the resident since the middle of May 2022.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord said that in relation to the resident’s complaint, (although it was not clear from the correspondence which complaint it was referring to), it did not uphold her issue in relation to the asbestos survey. It said that as there was no asbestos in her property, there was no need to test the air. It said that in order to resolve her other issue with the pest infestation, it recommended that she allowed it to complete its investigations. It said that despite contacting her every week by phone and email on several occasions over the past 2 weeks, she had not responded. It said it would still like to provide the resident with a skip so that the investigations could go ahead but if she did not respond by 15 June 2022, it would presume she no longer wanted the investigations to go ahead.
The resident responded that she had been waiting for pest control since 9 May 2022. She said she had already explained the reason she had refused access was because she had wanted to get legal representation but that she would work alongside the landlord. She also said she had told the landlord months ago that “…anytime is ok for pest control to attend.”
She questioned why the landlord had taken her to court when she was willing to allow access.
She said she felt the landlord had tried to trick her into thinking the asbestos test was a full test and she had explained that any surveyor that came to the property would not be able to properly assess the situation as she had replaced a floor, which she felt would mask the problem. She also complained that the landlord had, as she understood, decided to close her complaint.
She said she had asked the landlord to put all the money it was spending on hiring a skip into an asbestos airborne test instead. She said she would pay for the other half of the test herself.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord provided a further complaint response, headed stage 1 response. (We presume this was the response to the May 2022 complaint referred to above.) The main points were:
1. The landlord had conducted an asbestos survey at the property and found no asbestos. It would therefore not be conducting an air test for asbestos.
2. The landlord had agreed it would provide a pest contractor to test the property for pests once she had cleared the property for it to enter. It had provided a skip, which was left at the resident’s property for 11 days. During that time it was only half filled. It had called and emailed her to arrange another skip but this had not been arranged.
3. In relation to repairs work, it said that it would be in contact with the resident in the following week.
4. It did not uphold her complaint and said it had now closed her complaint case.
However, it said that if she disagreed with the decision, she could contact the landlord within the next 30 days to move to the next stage.
On 1 July 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 but this had been blocked.
On 27 July 2022 the resident called the landlord and said she needed a visit from her housing officer. She said she felt cut off and isolated with the process of repairs and complaints and needed a “friendly chat to make her feel valued.” She said she was struggling.
The records show the landlord called the resident back within minutes. The notes say the resident was abusive and said she was not concerned about the disrepair. She was more concerned with her children’s asthma and the fact that she had to have her scalp checked. She felt the landlord had “…made her mentally ill.”
On 1 August 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord asking why it would not allow her to escalate her complaint. She said she had asked to escalate her complaint on the same day the stage 1 response was written but had been told she had to call back the same day. She said she did this. She said her mental state was deteriorating.
The landlord responded that the resident had called on 27 July 2022. It said it informed her, as per the stage 1 response, about the upcoming pest survey visit. It said that her housing officer had been away but she had been given the number of another housing officer who, in their absence, had been trying to arrange skip visits to clear the property. However, it took several weeks to clear the property. It said her stage 2 case was being dealt with by the head of housing, who would contact her before reaching a conclusion on the case.
On 2 and 11 August 2022 the landlord’s pest contractor visited the property. Its findings were that it considered there had been no mite manifestation at the property.
On 23 August 2022 the landlord responded to comments made by the resident. It does not appear to have been the formal response to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as it said she would receive a stage 2 response from a senior officer. In the landlord’s comments it set out the following:
1. In response to the resident’s request to remove the floor at the property to show the holes in her walls, it said that this was a disrepair issue and the resident had not allowed the repairs officer access to the property. It asked if the resident wished the landlord to make another appointment.
2. In response to the resident’s contention that she could not rest because she had not been given a proper outcome, it said that as a resolution, at stage 1 of her complaint, she was given the asbestos report showing no asbestos at the property.
3. In relation to the resident’s concerns that she had been told there was a “…definite chance” of asbestos fibres at the property and request that the landlord investigate everything thoroughly, it said that the investigator would write to her with his findings. It did not respond to the resident’s claim that she had told the landlord it could have access in February 2022.
4. In relation to the resident’s concerns that when she spoke to the investigator assigned to look at her complaint, it did not appear he knew the detail of her complaint, the landlord said this was because he wanted to hear her version of events.
5. In relation to the resident’s request that the landlord speak with the local council about its environmental report, it said its own pest control contractor had attended the property. It confirmed that the resident would be provided with the pest inspector’s report at the stage 2 resolution of the complaint. It added that if the resident wished to arrange a meeting with her local council, her housing officer would be happy to attend.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. In summary, it made the following points:
1. In relation to the resident’s claim about a bird infestation, it said the local council had told it in January 2022, that “…bird mites have been in the property.” It said that between January and May 2022 it had tried to gain access to carry out an independent inspection. A proper survey could then not be completed because the resident had been asked to clear floorspace and had been offered a skip to do so, but it was not until 10 June 2022 that this could be arranged. The skip was collected on 20 June 2022 and it was only a quarter filled. It said the resident made a complaint asking why the skip had been removed and a second skip was then located at the property on 11 July 2022. The independent inspection then went ahead on 2 August 2022 and the conclusion of the report was that there were “…no traces of bird mites or any infestation at your property.”
2. In relation to asbestos at the property, the landlord said a partial survey had been completed prior to a kitchen being fitted at the property. In May 2022 a copy of an asbestos report for the resident’s property was given to her which confirmed there was no asbestos at the property. In June 2022 the landlord confirmed that an airborne test was not necessary.
3. In response to the holes in the resident’s walls, it said attempts had been made to fix the holes but access had been denied and the resident had submitted a disrepair claim. It said it would not comment on the disrepair case in this response but encouraged her to get in contact to resolve outstanding repairs.
4. As there was no evidence of an infestation at the property, it would not authorise compensation to be paid for any items the resident had decided to dispose of.
In summary, it said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The resident then approached the Ombudsman.
On 24 October 2022 the records show that pest control were ‘sign-posted’ by the landlord.
An inspection on 25 October 2022, found rat droppings and observed urine spots in the property’s living room, under kitchen units and behind the bath panel. The inspector identified 2 internal points of ingress, one of which was in a large hole in the wall.
On 27 October 2022 an internal landlord note said the property had “…long overdue works required and now has an infestation.” It said there had been some access issues and it would now, following a survey, be removing decking and filling up holes at the property.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord said the resident made a further complaint. We have not seen a copy of this complaint. However, the landlord’s response on the same day said the complaint was about disrepair works that were outstanding after 18 months, the landlord’s repeated failures to communicate with the resident and the landlord’s decision not to conduct a new asbestos survey at the property. The points the landlord made relevant to this investigation, were:
1. Officers had sent multiple letters and visited the property on 14 November 2022. There had been regular communications to arrange skips and pest control.
2. As the asbestos survey was arranged by the landlord’s compliance department, the landlord had no reason to believe it was inadequate. It continued to rely on the findings of the 24 April 2022 report.
We do not have a record of the resident’s response to this stage 1 complaint response but it is clear from the stage 2 complaint response, on 16 January 2023, that the resident remained unhappy. In that response the landlord said it had visited the property on 3 January 2023 and the resident had expressed that she felt belittled by the stage 1 response, continued to feel the asbestos reports were inaccurate and did not feel listened to.
A note was made on the landlord’s systems that at the visit, evidence was gathered that the resident had vulnerabilities and therefore it was agreed that a further survey should be completed. It was noted that although this was outside the landlord’s policy, it wanted to attempt to support the resident with her requests and concerns for her and her family relating to asbestosis.
The January 2023 response repeated word for word the content of the stage 2 response sent on 26 August 2022. However, the landlord also said that it had listened to the resident’s concerns about validation and as a gesture of goodwill and for her peace of mind it would:
1. Conduct a further asbestos survey with the flooring removed.
2. Conduct a further inspection to identify any presence of bird mites.
3. it said it would discuss alternative accommodation with the resident on a temporary basis while works were proceeding.
On 27 January 2023 an internal landlord email passed on the detail of the original email dated 19 January 2022 from the council to the landlord about bird mites at the property. As set out above, that email said that bird and/rodent control was “essential” and suggested steps to deal with the issue, including conducting repairs to ensure it would not happen again.
On 27 March 2023 the resident met with the landlord to discuss the repairs and the works that were being carried out at the property. The resident had been decanted during the works.
The minutes of the meeting show that the resident still felt an airborne asbestos test was necessary. She said she had evidence that the council had asked the landlord to fumigate the property when they found bird mites there. The landlord asked her to send evidence of this. The resident made reference to a report provided by the local council about pests. However, the landlord said that that report was not specific to the property and appeared to be more of a description of different types of pests. The notes of the meeting record that the resident agreed with the landlord about the report and said she would follow the council up about it.
We have seen copies of 2 reports about pests. One of those was sent to the landlord on 22 January 2022. The landlord requested a copy of the report after receiving the email on 19 January 2022 from the council saying that bird mites had been found at the property. Having read that report, it appears the advice from the council on 22 January 2022, that, “Bird and/or rodent control is essential in dealing with these groups of mites,” was a direct quote from the report. The report also provided further information about bird mites and said that adult female [bird] mites, “…are unable to breed in association with man alone….[they] invest areas where rodents are found…leaving harborages only to feed on the rodents. Migration of the mites occurs when rodents are controlled/removed or when a nest is abandoned.”
We have also seen a copy of another report, with the date of 13 June 2023. This report does not refer to bird mites. Again, the subject heading of the email has the property address. However, it has a different reference number to the report cited above. The officer who reviewed this report responded that it did not provide any information about the property with no dates or locations or reasoning why or where the bugs were found. She said that if that report was connected to the property, the resident should arrange with the council to have the pests removed as the report did not say anything about the property condition.
The minutes of the meeting show the resident expressed that she felt the landlord had neglected her and its inaction had led to the breakdown of her relationship. She said she had had to sleep in her car for 12 months because of the worry around asbestos and the bird mite infestation. She had to take time out of the meeting and the landlord, concerned about the resident, made a safeguarding referral for her the next day.
In the landlord’s November 2022 response to a stage 1 complaint about pests and asbestos, the landlord said the “…infestation has been dealt with.”
On 2 March 2023 an internal email said that that before the resident was to attend the property, a pest management company had attended “…to investigate both the mite and rats issue.” It said that with regard to the rats there were “…no final conclusions…[it] never got an update as to whether the rats were eradicated despite chasing this…as communication was poor.” However, the landlord also said that the resident had not reported any further sightings.

Assessment and findings

On the landlord’s response to reports of asbestos at the property.

The landlord’s policy says it is proactive about identifying an asbestos risk. The HHSRS says it should assess any vulnerability to damage and identify any current damage or potential fibre release. In line with both its policy and safety standards it conducted a number of tests for asbestos at the property. These were as listed:
1. 7 September 2021 – Refurbishment survey to the kitchen.
2. 21 April 2022 – a management survey – all areas accessed.
3. 27 February 2023 – a refurbishment asbestos survey – all areas accessed with particular reference being made to the property bedroom wall.
It is understandable that the resident sought a more thorough test than the partial test completed in September 2021, which was only conducted in the kitchen area. However, in April 2022 the survey records that each room was assessed and no evidence of asbestos was found. The landlord was not obliged to conduct airborne tests when it considered there was no evidence of asbestos. In that circumstance, it was reasonable for it to conclude that there was no evidence of a ‘potential fibre release’.
The resident had contacted an asbestos company who thought she might have asbestos at the property and as her children suffered from asthma, she was understandably concerned. However, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refuse further testing after having sought advice from its asbestos team who considered there was “zero” likelihood of asbestos at the property.
However, the landlord conducted a fuller survey in February 2023 after it said it had gathered evidence of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The January 2023 complaint response had said it hoped this would give her “peace of mind”. The resident reported her mental health history and had described the deterioration of her mental health to the landlord at a much earlier date, in May 2022. She was insistent that the April 2022 survey was not a proper survey because it neglected to assess the area that she had covered with a new floor. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns, knowing of her mental state as it did, at a much earlier date.
It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the outcome of expert opinion that an airborne test was not needed. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been responsive to the resident’s anxiety about asbestos at an earlier date than January 2023. Its earlier repeated refusal to address her specific concern would not have helped its communications with the resident and she became focused on the issue of requesting an airborne test above all else; asking the landlord not to order a skip (which would have helped move on the pest investigation). The landlord’s unwillingness to be flexible at an earlier stage damaged the landlord tenant relationship and caused the resident avoidable distress.
We consider the landlord’s delay in recognising the resident’s vulnerabilities and responding sympathetically to her concerns, amounts to service failure. We have awarded a payment to acknowledge the distress caused by its repeated refusal to properly acknowledge her concerns, especially in relation to the floor covering which the resident considered would have meant the April 2022 asbestos survey lacked thoroughness.

On the landlord’s response to reports of pests within the property

The landlord was told by the local council’s environmental health department that there was a bird mite issue at the property on 19 January 2022. It later told the resident that the council had said there was no final report for bird mites at the property. However, the information the local council had given the landlord on 19 January 2022 was conclusive evidence from laboratory tests of a bird mite issue. The email sent to the landlord said that “…bird and/or rodent control [was] essential in dealing with this group of mites.” It set out the steps the landlord needed to take and the council was under the impression that the landlord had agreed to carry them out. It also pointed to the importance of completing repairs at the property to prevent the infestation occurring again. Throughout the process, the landlord seemed to have been blinkered to the information it received in January 2022. Even after the Ombudsman made further enquiries about why the landlord felt it necessary to complete its own survey when it had received confirmation from the council about a bird mite issue, it continued to view the information provided by the council as being only ‘information’ and not connected to the property. This Service considers the information, which was specifically provided in relation to the property, and was accompanied with an analysis of that information and advice from the council, was more than information. It was confirmation of a problem.
It is therefore unclear why the landlord considered it needed to complete its own tests. If it was because the council had asked it not to share the report outcome with the resident, this doesn’t explain why it did not rely on the council’s reports. The council had asked the landlord not to share the information but had said that it would be asking its social team to do so. It was clear the resident was aware of the infestation because she complained about it.
We accept the evidence that access was an issue at the property during January to May 2022. Although the resident said she told the landlord she was happy to grant access in order to deal with the bird infestation, the records show the landlord found arranging access difficult, sometimes simply because it was difficult to contact the resident. It is also clear from the records that the resident’s solicitors had at one point told her not to allow access in relation to her repairs as this could harm her disrepair case. However, in or around May 2022 the landlord obtained an access injunction and costs against the resident. It said at that point that it would then be able to “…complete all outstanding repairs.” It is not clear why, in that case, that it did not do so. Later, in November 2022, in another complaint response, the landlord said it had tried to gain access to complete repairs 5 times. But it did not say why it did not use the powers it would have had under its access injunction.
Instead, it appears that no repairs were arranged and in October 2022, the landlord noted that the property had “…long overdue works required and now has an infestation.” It was inappropriate, given the advice the landlord had been given in January 2022 and knowing of the claims the resident had made about her mental deterioration, for the landlord to allow the situation to drift for so long. This is especially the case when it had obtained costs against the resident to acquire an access injunction.
It is also notable that there appears to be a connection, set out in the report provided by the council’s environmental health department, between bird mites and rodents. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that rats were present at the property in January 2022. However, the council considered bird mite/rodent control was necessary, the resident had been reporting large holes in the walls of her property around that time and later, in October 2022, reported rats, whose presence was later confirmed.
When the landlord received the council’s January 2022 email and the advice given was that it was “essential” to address the issue, it should have acted immediately. It had access issues initially. But when it obtained an access injunction on 23 May 2022, it had the freedom to act on 24 hours notice. It was inappropriate that it delayed acting decisively on the information it had received, particularly when equipped with an access injunction.
The landlord does not have a pest control policy. It is perhaps a reason for the uncoordinated response to the information it had been given about the issue. However, the tendering information it put out to prospective bidders for its pest control contractors, stated that it would be expected that a company could urgently respond.
As the resident said, the landlord appeared to “go round in circles” testing for bird mites again using its own inspectors. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s own pest inspectors did not identify a bird mite infestation in August 2022. However, this was 8 months after the initial report and there could be a number of reasons for this. It does not negate the fact that the council had warned the landlord that unless repairs were conducted at the property, the pest infestation that it had already identified, could once dealt with, arise again. It did not act immediately to deal with the infestation and a rat infestation followed. It is at least arguable that this might have been avoided if the landlord had taken the preventative steps it had been advised to take.
Taken all together the Ombudsman considers the delay and lack of a coordinated approach to the reports of pests at the property warrants a finding of maladministration against the landlord.
We consider that because of the access issues at the property between January and May 2022, the landlord found it difficult to address the pest issues during that period. Even if, as the resident claims, she was willing to allow access to address the pest issue, it is clear that the relationship between the landlord and the resident was difficult at this time and access was problematic. However, between June 2022 and November 2022, when there is evidence the landlord began in earnest to address the disrepair issues and the pest issue and to gain access, the resident did not have the full enjoyment of her property. She was constantly concerned, between May and August 2022, when the landlord’s pest contractors attended, about what she thought was a bird mite infestation. She had to attend hospital because of concerns about her scalp. And, throughout that period, as the landlord did not use its access injunction to make repairs, the conditions at the property must have been uncomfortable. By October 2022 the resident was reporting a rat infestation, which must have been very distressing for her and her family. For that reason, we have made an order for compensation below.

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

It appears the resident’s first complaint about asbestos and pests issues was made on or around 12 May 2022. The records show she was expressing her dissatisfaction around this time as she was disappointed in the type of asbestos test that had been carried out. The landlord informed her on 25 May 2022 that it had to extend the deadline to address her complaint until it had received the reports from both surveys conducted. While we understand the landlord may have wanted to gather relevant evidence about the issues, it could still have responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in time, setting out what steps it had taken to address her concerns. As the Code sets out at section 5.5, a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed.
If after receiving the complaint response, the resident remained unhappy with the survey outcomes, she could have raised those concerns separately. But the internal notes say that the extension was granted so that the resident would have to clear her property. It was not reasonable to use the complaint’s process as leverage to encourage the resident to clear her property so that the surveys could go ahead. Access issues should be dealt with separately to the issues that needed to be addressed in the complaint response or equally, they could have been commented on in the complaint response. But delaying the complaint response frustrated the resident and she said left her feeling isolated and not listened to.
The resident did not receive a stage 1 response to her complaint until 22 June 2022. This was 27 working days, 17 working days longer than the response time set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and therefore inappropriate.
On 23 August 2022, while not a formal complaint response, the landlord responded to a number of points the resident had made in her complaint. In response to her request for the landlord to remove the floor at her property to show the holes in her walls, it responded to this as if it was a disrepair issue. However, it was clear from the resident’s correspondence that she was concerned about the floor covering because she considered it might have masked an asbestos issue when the April 2022 survey was conducted. This was a failure of the landlord to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint in line with section 5.6 of the Code. Other examples of this failure are set out below:
1. It did not respond to the resident’s claims that she had told the landlord it could have access in February 2022.
2. It did not comment on the discrepancies in the environmental report and the landlord’s pest inspection.
Looking at the first stage 1 response, it is difficult to ascertain how well the landlord responded to the issues raised by the resident as we have not been given a copy of the original complaint or acknowledgement to that complaint. It is unhelpful that the landlord did not set out the issues it sought to respond to or the date on which the resident made her complaint. But it is clear it did not address the fact that the resident said she had received a report saying she had a bird mite infestation from the council or seek to explain or address why its report was so different in outcome to that produced by the council. This is a failure to properly acknowledge the resident’s concerns and is inappropriate.
A stage 2 response was provided to the resident on or around 26 August 2022. If, as the evidence indicates, the resident escalated her stage 1 complaint on the date of receipt of the landlord’s response, this took 46 working days. It is 20 working days beyond when the Code says landlords should respond. This is an inappropriate delay and added to the resident’s feeling she was being ignored, damaging further a landlord tenant relationship that was already strained.
The stage 2 response provided a chronology of actions taken in relation to the bird mite issue. However, it would have been helpful again if it had addressed the different report conclusions from the council and the more recent pest inspections.
At this point the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. However, following further complaints from the resident, the landlord responded again on 15 January 2023, referring to the August 2022 response. The landlord’s response was appropriate. The reviewer had visited the resident and taken the time to listen to her concerns and recognise her vulnerabilities. As a consequence, even though the response echoed the conclusions of the August 2022 findings, it sought to provide resolution. It did so by arranging another asbestos survey, this time with the flooring removed. It also arranged another bird mite survey. It arranged for the resident to be placed in alternative accommodation while the works were progressing.
However, it is concerning that the landlord continued to say that the council had not provided a final report confirming bird mites at the property. The landlord had been informed, by email, in January 2022, of the council’s findings. This information does not appear to have been passed onto the reviewer until a few days after the response was sent to the resident. However, it was known to the landlord in March 2023 when a meeting was held with the resident and the resident was asked again to produce that report. This is inappropriate.
Further, while the response in January 2023 dealt sensitively with the issues not upheld by the landlord in August 2022; this was effectively a third stage to the complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out at section 5.18 that it does not believe a third stage is necessary as part of a complaints process. In this case, it was confusing for the resident and the Ombudsman as while it was clearly a third stage, it was not referenced as such. It also meant that the landlord failed to acknowledge its failure to deal with the resident’s concerns appropriately at stage 2.
Section 4.4 of the Code sets out that complaints should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. This was not the case here, where the landlord’s ultimate resolution was delayed and where its responses throughout the process were difficult to follow and failed to engage sympathetically with the resident. This is inappropriate and we consider that taken altogether, amounts to maladministration.

On the landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of complaint responses and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively.
In this case, the landlord’s failures in record keeping hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation of this complaint as we were given inaccurate information about when complaint responses were completed or sent and had to piece together the chronology of the landlord’s responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in response to reports of pests within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to the handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its knowledge and information management.

Reasons

The landlord was initially unresponsive to the resident’s specific concerns about the asbestos reports that had been carried out at the property. It delayed properly acknowledging the resident’s vulnerabilities and specific anxieties about what she believed was a threat to the health of her family. This approach caused the resident distress.
The landlord received confirmation of a bird mite infestation at the property in January 2022. It delayed responding to that information and decided to carry out its own survey. It delayed carrying out the survey because it initially had difficulty gaining access to the property, despite having an obtained an access injunction to gain entry to the property in May 2022. This meant that repairs, which it had been advised should be addressed to avoid further infestation, were not addressed. A rat infestation followed before the landlord took appropriate action.
The landlord was late in responding to both the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. It inappropriately used the complaint’s procedure to try and encourage the resident to take action on her property. Its responses repeatedly failed to properly acknowledge key concerns.
The lack of information the landlord provided to the Ombudsman, particularly in relation to its complaint responses and the dates they were sent to the resident, hindered our investigation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £700 in compensation within 4 weeks, comprising:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to reports of asbestos at the property.
2. £300 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to reports of pests within the property.
3. £200 to acknowledge the landlord’s identified failings in complaint handling.
4. £100 to acknowledge the landlord’s identified failings in record keeping.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the identified failings in this report. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express sincere regret.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. The review should include, but not be limited to, consideration of 2 specific issues of concern:
1. Its failings in record keeping in this case and how it can improve its systems. It should consider how it can implement the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
2. Consider if a pest control policy, which specifically sets out the process for responding to a report of pest infestation or issue would be helpful to its residents and the organisation.
3. How the landlord could have obtained access to the property and so carry out the clearance for the pest survey to be carried out sooner.
The outcome of this review, along with an action plan setting out how the landlord intends to implement any findings or considerations made, is to be reported to both this Service and the landlord’s governing body. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case. This should be provided within 8 weeks of this determination.