Westminster City Council (202323512)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323512

Westminster City Council

30 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

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

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The resident occupied a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. He now resides at a different property having moved in January 2024. The resident is a disabled, bariatric patient with mobility issues.
3. Around August 2021, the resident made a complaint in relation to pests. In September 2021, the landlord said the last case for the property was closed on 1 March 2019, following no access being possible and said it had not received any contact from the resident since nor were there any open cases in relation to pest issues. The resident contacted this Service about this in October 2021 who relayed his concerns to the landlord.
4. On 5 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange an appointment with its pest control service. The landlord offered Monday, Wednesday and Friday appointments, but the resident advised these days were unsuitable as he needed his carer present for appointments. The landlord said the appointment was declined as the resident could not guarantee access and apologised that it could not accommodate his availability as requested.
5. The landlord’s note of 17 April 2023 stated the resident had an issue with mice in the kitchen and proofing works were needed. The same day, the landlord arranged for a flag to be put on his account explaining that he is bedbound and unable to walk. An inspection took place around 26 April 2023. Subsequently, on 11 May 2023, proofing works were undertaken. The proofing works included the kitchen and cupboards under the stairs and an inspection on 24 May 2023 noted no further pest activity seen or reported. A further report was made by the resident on 25 May 2023 and the landlord’s contractor attended on 6 June 2023 and again proofed cupboards under the stairs and in the kitchen.
6. On 21 June 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that despite holes being sealed, he was still getting mice. He added that it had taken the landlord 4 years to get the works done and said its contractors did not do a proper job. He also said he had to buy ‘stick traps’ as the landlord would not put them down and said that mice can make him very ill. He wanted the landlord to carry out the work properly and to be compensated.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023. It said the resident first reported the problem of mice being present in the hallway and kitchen of his home on 5 November 2021. The landlord said, prior to its contractor attending the property, the resident called to cancel the appointment and that there were no further reports received. It said another report was received on 18 April 2023 about mice in the kitchen. Its contractor attended on 27 April 2023 and provided a report of proofing works needed to stop mice. The recommended works were carried out by its service on 11 May 2023. It said that after this it did not receive any further reports and the case was closed. However, it confirmed a new case had been registered with its pest control contractor and an appointment booked for Friday 21 July 2023. 
8. A visit to the property took place on 8 July 2023. It noted low infestation and that proofing was done recently. It also said bait had been taken and a vent in the chimney breast could be a possible entry point for rodents. It placed several extra baits and arranged a visit in 4 weeks time. Dissatisfied with its stage 1 response, the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 11 July 2023. He explained that with regard to the landlord’s statement that he had cancelled the appointment, he is housebound and has carers and also wrote to the Ombudsman and a member of landlord staff about this. He explained that since 2019 he had been very ill. He said he needs an appointment that works for both his carers and the landlord contractors, but felt the landlord refused to do this. He also said while proofing work appeared to have been done on 11 May 2023, it was a poor job and the mice problem persisted. The resident said the contractor had found evidence of mice when it visited on 8 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 19 July 2023.
9. The resident emailed again on 31 July 2023 stating that works had not been completed properly and provided photos. Another inspection took place on 8 August 2023. The landlord said no evidence was found but the resident reported rodent activity. On 25 August 2023, a joint visit took place with the resident’s carers, a landlord surveyor and a pest control contractor where mouse droppings were found under the kitchen sink. On 29 August 2023, the landlord raised a work order to have expanding foam cut away in the boiler cupboard and to fill the holes with sand and cement. It also raised an order to have the kitchen sink area dismantled and the washing machine moved to enable inspection for any points of entry.
10. On 5 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised that the resident was not offered a time-specific appointment to coincide with his carer’s attendance. It explained that following the visit on 25 August 2023, the expanding foam was to be removed and replaced with sand and cement, and that it would also arrange for the kitchen sink and cupboards to be dismantled to find any other ingress points. With respect to proofing work, its surveyor attended the property on 21 July 2023 but was unable to conclude if the proofing was effective. It recognised there was a continuing problem in his home and it would work to resolve this. It offered compensation of £220 made up of £100 for failing to provide the resident time-specific appointments to accommodate his carer’s attendance and the inconvenience caused, £100 for the delay in actioning a follow-up inspection of the quality of the proofing work, and £20 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
11. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 October 2023. He said that he wanted the landlord to follow up on its promises in its stage 2 response and said it did not take his disability into account when making appointments and proofing was not done to standard. As a resolution, the resident wanted the infestation to be properly dealt with and further compensation from the landlord. The works orders raised on 29 August 2023 were carried out on 31 October 2023. Around 18 December 2023, a move was proposed and in January 2024 the resident moved to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that the mice issue was longstanding. The landlord said the last case for his property was on 1 March 2019. The resident has said he made further reports after this time. While this may be the case, the investigation will not seek to consider reports as far back as 2019. The Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from June 2022 onwards. However, events outside this period may be referred to for contextual background. 
13. The Ombudsman also notes the resident’s assertion in his complaint to the landlord that he felt discriminated against by the landlord, as he said it repeatedly booked appointments that it was previously aware he could not provide entry for. As per section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, it is for a county court to decide if there has been discrimination or other prohibited conduct. The Service cannot make a binding decision on whether discrimination has occurred – this would be a matter for the courts. We can, however, consider whether the landlord treated the resident unfavourably in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a rodent infestation

14. Following the resident’s reports of mice in his property, the landlord had an obligation to inspect, and to assess what steps were required to prevent the issue from recurring such as relevant treatments and proofing work. Additionally, the landlord had a duty to keep the resident informed throughout the process.
15. The landlord’s tenant handbook refers to pest control which directs to a pest control website. The landlord will treat public health pests including rats and mice and appointments can be made by phoning or emailing. Appointments are taken for customer-preferred time slots through each working day Monday to Friday.
16. The landlord’s website also provides information about mice and how to prevent an infestation. It explains its pest control officer will survey the property and poison bait stations will be placed in the most appropriate locations with a ‘notice to occupier’ being issued to the resident detailing which poisons had been used. It added minor proofing work may be carried out by the officer but if more substantial work is required, proofing advice will be sent to the estate office and any follow up visit will be arranged with the resident at the end of a visit. It notes that depending on the circumstance most mice infestations take 4 to 8 weeks to control.
17. With respect to proofing advice, it provides this where rodent infestations reoccur due to gaps left when installing appliances, typically in kitchens and bathrooms, or the fabric of the buildings allow for rodent infestation. Advice is emailed direct to the landlord’s repairs team; where they assign a job to its contractor to carry out the work. In some cases, a more in-depth approach is required and a proofing report can come from a building surveyor or environmental health officer.
18. From the evidence this Service has seen, the landlord was aware by 3 April 2023 of a new report of mice. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response indicates that no new report was made until 18 April 2023. Indeed, the landlord seemed to find it difficult to establish what had already happened since it requested a report of proofing works previously carried out. This would suggest that the landlord did not undertake an adequate investigation of its records at stage 1. In addition, the Ombudsman has seen evidence which shows a job was raised on 17 April 2023 despite the alleged report date of 18 April 2023, which was a failing on the part of the landlord. It may be the case that its record keeping was inadequate and staff members were unable to establish what events had happened and when. 
19. Further, the stage 1 response stated that the resident had cancelled an appointment scheduled for 5 November 2021. This again was inaccurate as the Ombudsman has seen correspondence dated November 2021 where a landlord staff member acknowledged it was unable to offer an appointment that was suitable for him. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was not a request for cancellation by the resident but simply stating he could not take up the offered appointment. The landlord has provided evidence that shows it was aware in 2016 of the resident’s mobility issue, and the resident said the landlord has been aware that he has been bedbound since 2019. Since the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should have proactively worked with him to arrange an appointment when his carer could be present. This is in line with its pest control policy which states “appointments are taken in customer preferred time slots through each working day from Monday to Friday”. However, the landlord did not appear to comply with its own policy and there is no evidence of work or inspection in 2021 or 2022. While the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for these errors in its stage 2 response, this would have caused distress and frustration to the resident.
20. Around 26 April 2023 another inspection took place which noted a large hole in the boiler cupboard.  Proofing work took place on 11 May 2023. However the resident said this was of poor standard. The Ombudsman has seen proofing advice dated 24 May 2023 but it is unclear if this was sent to the resident. A further report was made by the resident around 25 May 2023. Further proofing work appeared to take place on 6 June 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by attending in an acceptable time after receiving this report and, on this occasion, at a suitable time.
21. Despite these proofing works, the resident reported that the mice issue was not resolved and made a formal complaint on 21 June 2023.  The landlord’s stage 1 response was inaccurate in stating that after 11 May 2023 there were no further reports, which inevitably caused distress and frustration to the resident who felt that the landlord did not satisfactorily review information available to it. Moreover, as the resident had previously explained that he was unable to take up Fridays, it was inappropriate for the landlord to offer an appointment on a Friday. This again demonstrated the landlord did not recognise the specific needs of the resident whose availability was dependent on his carer’s attendance.
22. A further inspection took place on Saturday 8 July 2023 which noted that although proofing had been done recently, there was still low-level infestation, and a vent in the chimney breast could be an ingress point; it would follow up in 4 weeks. The resident stated that this was an unscheduled appointment. Although the landlord said it was arranged via telephone on 5 July 2023, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this being prearranged with the resident nor does this reflect its policy of offering appointments working days Monday to Friday. While the landlord acted fairly by inspecting the property again, it is clear that a number of inspections had already taken place and the resident was continuing to report issues. Indeed, the landlord’s internal notes around this time acknowledge that this was a historical case.
23. It was apparent the resident was unhappy with the landlord making multiple attempts to carry out proofing work. While it is appreciated pest control can be iterative and may take several attempts, by August 2023 this was well over the 8 weeks it states it generally takes to control a mice infestation. The landlord acted appropriately by following up its 8 July 2023 visit with an inspection on 8 August 2023 which noted that although proofing had been undertaken to the boiler cupboard, the resident’s carer had since caught 2 mice that were in this cupboard. Its contractor suggested mice may have dug around the proofing and made an additional hole which the contractor would fill with expanding foam.
24. On 18 August 2023, the landlord acted fairly by establishing contact details of the resident’s carer so it could arrange suitable times to undertake the necessary work. However, in internal correspondence at this time the landlord’s pest control services said it had not been advised of any vulnerability. This is concerning, particularly as the resident had made several reports to the landlord about his vulnerability which were acknowledged. In view of this, a recommendation has been made.
25. The resident agreed to a joint visit with his carer, a landlord surveyor and its pest control contractor on Friday 25 August 2023. At this visit, it was discussed that the expanding foam was to be removed and replaced with sand and cement, and mouse droppings were found in the cupboard by the sink. It also arranged for the kitchen unit to be dismantled to see if there were any ingress points. This was a suitable approach for the landlord to take and demonstrated a willingness to resolve the residents’ concerns. These work orders were raised on 29 August 2023.
26. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord’s contractor sent text messages to the resident to arrange appointments for this proofing work on 7, 13 and 20 September 2023. Yet, despite having been made aware of the resident’s circumstances, the contactor continued to book in appointments for dates that the resident would be unable to take up, which the resident had to take time and trouble to rearrange. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord or contractor attempted to establish the times of his carer’s attendance until 29 September and 4 October 2023. Indeed, an internal landlord email of 18 September 2023 acknowledged “this one seems to have gone wrong again”. This was a significant failing particularly as this issue had come up on a number of occasions before. The landlord’s inability to adequately coordinate appointments would have caused further distress to the resident who had lived with a mice issue for a prolonged period of time. This was after the landlord had acknowledged its failing in its final response of 5 September 2023 and promised that appointments with the resident would be made “at the earliest opportunity to coincide with your carers’ availability”. On 29 September 2023, the landlord‘s contractor explained the work to dismantle the kitchen required 4 hours to complete and it was agreed with the resident that the work would not be completed in one go but in 1-hour stages.
27. The work order raised on 29 August 2023 for removing the expanding foam was not completed until 31 October 2023. This was a considerable amount of time to carry out work and there is no indication the resident was kept updated about this work which was contrary to its repairs section in the tenancy handbook which states “we will give you a target time of when we will complete the repair. If there is a delay, we will let you know.”
28. An inspection took place on 10 November 2023 to check the works carried out on 31 October 2023. Internal landlord emails indicate that its pest control contractor did not provide any photos, despite the contractor suggesting it did so, in relation to the proofing carried out after dismantling the kitchen units, moving the washing machine, and reassembling, resealing and reinstating. The inspection also noted that the unit under the sink was full of droppings. It suggested proofing was likely carried out with cement in the boiler cupboard but said the contractor had been unable to check behind kickboards as they had been sealed. It also suggested that since the resident had provided a video of a mouse after the proofing work of 31 October 2023, the mouse was now “locked inside” the flat, so baiting was renewed. It was unfortunate that the landlord was unable to satisfactorily post–inspect and establish if sufficient proofing had been carried out. A recommendation has been made below.
29. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
30. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said its repair service will carry out recommended works within its service level agreement. According to the tenant handbook, for non-urgent repairs which include external works to be referred to the landlord surveying team for review and allocation, the landlord aims to attend and complete work within 28 working days. The proofing work was initially undertaken on 11 May 2023 with further proofing work on 6 June 2023. The landlord said this was checked by a repairs surveyor on 21 July 2023. This was 33 working days later and somewhat outside its repairs service level agreement for non-urgent repairs. The inspection on 21 July 2023 stated that mice could be entering from the cupboard below the door. Despite having raised the issue in April 2023, the matter was therefore still not resolved over 6 months later and further proofing works were required.
31. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised and offered £100 for failing to provide the resident time-specific appointments to accommodate his carer’s attendance and £100 for the delay in actioning a follow up inspection of the quality of the proofing work. While this was an attempt to put things right and the landlord had identified learning to prevent a recurrence of this situation, following the stage 2 response it yet again arranged an appointment at an unsuitable time which the resident emailed the landlord about on 17 September 2023. It appears that despite having explicitly stated that its contact centre for pest control service had been reminded that time-specific appointments can be offered where care needs require this, and having updated the resident’s details to reflect his requirements, the learning was not being put into practice. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. It was not until 31 October 2023 that the landlord’s contractor attended to dismantle the kitchen units and block up holes.
32. A number of reports and inspections mentioned in correspondence and formal responses do not feature in the landlord’s supplied repair log to this Service. Nor does it provide details of what happened at each visit or what action was taken to resolve each problem. This may indicate underlying issues with the landlord’s record keeping. In line with our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. In this respect, a recommendation has been made.
33. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation was poor. In this case, due to the resident’s disability of which the landlord was fully aware, he was unable for a lengthy period to accommodate appointments on certain days of the week. Despite having recognised its previous failing in this regard, the landlord did not demonstrate appropriate flexibility or willingness to assist but continued to arrange appointments which the resident could not accommodate without his carer present. This caused detriment to the resident and the landlord should have been proactive in ensuring its contractor arranged an appointment based on the resident’s specific needs.
34. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology, the resident had explained his circumstances and carer routine a number of times, as well as the landlord confirming that its records from 2016 noted he had mobility issues. The landlord was aware of an infestation report as early as April 2023 and although proofing work was carried out in May 2023, June 2023 and October 2023, it did not carry out effective and lasting proofing works until around November 2023 which was a substantial amount of time. Even then, it was unclear if it had done it to a satisfactory standard. These failings amount to maladministration by the landlord.
35. The landlord’s compensation procedures state that discretionary compensation payments may be made and the amount should recognise the impact on the resident. This impact may be low, medium or high. In this case, the landlord treated the impact as ‘low’ which suggests that there has been a service failure that has impacted the resident but was of low impact and short duration with minimal to low inconvenience and distress. This allows awards up to £250. The landlord subsequently offered £100 for the delay in actioning a follow-up inspection of the quality of proofing works – which was within this bracket. For medium impacts, however, the procedure suggests £250 – £700 may be awarded where there has been a failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy, for example, to make adequate adjustments. This Service considers that this more closely aligns with the resident’s experience.
36. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation were not proportionate to the failings identified in this report as the landlord did not sufficiently consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and the errors in making appointments. In view of this, orders have been made below taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and the adverse effect the matter had upon him.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

37. The landlord’s complaints policy states it operates a two-stage procedure for handling complaints. At stage 1, a response should be issued within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, a response should be issued within 20 working days. When it is not possible to adhere to the timelines specified, there is a commitment to sending a holding response which explains the reasons for the delay and outlines when a response will be issued.
38. The resident made an initial complaint on 21 June 2023. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the complaint the next day and issuing its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023 which was in line with its policy of issuing its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord has since satisfactorily acknowledged and apologised for the incorrect information that it provided the resident in its stage 1 response.
39. Following the resident’s escalation request of 11 July 2023, the landlord contacted the resident on 14 July 2023 to establish if his complaint related to a specific reference. While it is not known how many complaints the resident may have had open with the landlord, from the context of his escalation request it was clear which complaint he wished escalated. This was a failing by the landlord who should have read his escalation request and located the appropriate complaint. It clearly caused frustration to the resident who felt that the landlord was unreasonably delaying his complaint. The landlord subsequently provided its stage 2 acknowledgement on 19 July 2023, 6 working days later. This was contrary to its policy which states complaints will generally be acknowledged within 2 working days.
40. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2023. This was 40 working days after the resident made a request for a stage 2 escalation. This was not in line with its complaints policy and was 20 working days over the 20-working day timeframe set out in its policy. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding and offered an apology and compensation of £20 in recognition of the delay. It is noted that the landlord did not update the resident on its consideration of the stage 2 complaint or specify when a response would be issued which was a failing and is likely to have caused distress. The lack of activity in the case file indicates that the landlord was not continuing to manage the resident’s complaint which is a failing on the part of the landlord. The resident understandably felt that the landlord had failed to fully come to grips with his complaint.
41. While the landlord did offer compensation for the delay in progressing the complaint at stage 2 and identified learning from this complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some additional compensation for the other failings identified. There has been service failure which has had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident so, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommended awards, an order and recommendation have been made below for remedy.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of rodent infestation.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

44. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 made up of:
       1. £220 as offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
       2. A further £300 for the failings in its handling of reports of a rodent infestation.
       3. A further £30 for the failings in its handling of the complaint.
45. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

46. The landlord should:
    1. Review its staff training needs regarding their application of its repairs, complaints, and compensation policies, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, to ensure that works such as in this case are promptly remedied to a satisfactory remedied and to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    2. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service including non-emergency repairs, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    3. Require that its contractors who deal with pest control take before and after photographs of work carried out to deal with infestation and provide the photos to the landlord as part of their report.
    4. Ensure that a vulnerability flag on a resident’s records is sufficiently obvious that it cannot be overlooked by its staff when arranging appointments to prevent the poor appointment handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future, and review its staff training needs in this respect.