Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202003638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003638

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

22 March 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a cockroach infestation in her block; and
2. The reasonableness of the landlord’s proposal to increase the resident’s service charge.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.
The Ombudsman notes that an element of the resident’s complaint related to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s proposal to increase the annual Service Charge. Highlighting pest control as one example of a lack of adequate service, and the appointment of unnecessary staff as a second, the resident challenged the reasonableness of the new charges put to her in 2019.
While the Ombudsman has acknowledged this, and will be investigating the appropriateness of the landlord’s pest control response in this case, the Ombudsman has not investigated or commented on the reasonableness of the service charge increase. This is as under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
In this instance, the Ombudsman considers it more appropriate for the matter to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal Property Tribunal (FTT). This is as the FTT is able to make determinations on whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable. The Ombudsman’s has therefore only investigated:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a cockroach infestation in her block; and
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property since September 2011.
The property is a one-bedroom third floor flat.
The resident has an ongoing history of depression. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was shared with the landlord at the start of the tenancy.

Legal and policy framework

Tenancy Agreement

The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman cannot see that this details any clear obligations in respect of the landlord’s pest control approach, however has noted the resident’s obligation to allow staff and contractors access to the property for the purpose of undertaking treatments and pest eradication.

Pest Control Policy

Usefully, the landlord has also provided this service with a copy of its Pest Control policy. This sets out the expected action when managing such problems and explains:
1. Where a report is received that a flat has been affected, a home visit will be carried out. If it is believed that only one property is affected, the resident will usually be expected to arrange and pay for any eradication works themselves.
2. Where two or more flats or common parts are affected, a survey will be undertaken by Pest Control contractors to identify the extent of the problem and make recommendations.
3. Pest control is a provided service under the tenancy agreement, however the costs expended are recoverable from the service recipients (through service charges).

Complaints Policy

The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy. On review of its three-stage process, the Ombudsman has noted that:
1. At stage one, the complaint will be considered and responded to by the staff members directly involved in the issue within 10 working days.
2. At stage two, if the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint will be considered by a Director and responded to within 10 working days.
3. At stage three, if the resident requests a review by the landlord’s complaints panel, the panel will meet within five weeks of receiving the complaint form. A written response will then be provided within 10 working days of the meeting.
4. If further time is required at any stage, the landlord will seek to agree a new timescale with the resident.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s handling of the infestation, her mental health worsened. Whilst this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
The Ombudsman can also see that the resident complained about the management and provision of communal bins at her property, mould and damp within her home, and Asbestos. The Ombudsman notes however that these were separate matters, and as such were addressed by the landlord under a separate complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore made no findings in respect of this, within this report.

Summary of events

On 15 April 2019 the resident emailed the landlord requiring “urgent attention”. She explained that she had contacted the local authority and paid to treat cockroaches that had recently appeared in her flat. The first visit to treat the infestation had been done on 12 April 2019 and another two treatments were scheduled to take place in two-week intervals. She explained that she had advised other tenants to contact the landlord, as recommended by the local authority, as cockroaches had been sighted outside a neighbour’s flat too. She requested that the landlord urgently arrange a pest control contractor to deal with the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence on the same day explaining that it would carry out a survey and make the appropriate recommendations for treatment.
On 1 May 2019 the landlord instructed Pest Control to undertake an inspection of the three blocks which made up the estate. The subsequent report (provided on 7 May 2019) detailed no evidence of cockroaches. Pest Control nonetheless recommended a monitoring programme as it was unable to gain access to inspect all properties within the block. As cockroaches had been reported in amongst flats 1-12, a three-part monitoring programme was recommended for these flats (the resident’s included). This involved placing monitors throughout the flats on the first visit and undertaking subsequent inspections fortnightly.
On 30 May 2019 Pest Control attempted to inspect flats 1-12 as part of the ongoing monitoring programme, however was unable to gain access to several properties (including the residents).
On 13 June 2019 Pest Control undertook an inspection of the resident’s property. The resident wrote to the landlord following this, confirming that no active infestation had been determined. The operative had, however, left several traps and would be returning in a few weeks to reassess the situation. The resident explained that when asked, the operative had informed her that he had been unable to gain access to a number of properties. The resident noted that the infestation would not be fully eradicated if all flats in the building had not been treated.
The resident explained that she had emptied her kitchen cupboards of all groceries, cutlery, plates, and cookware and stored these in bags in the living room. She was subsequently unable to spend time in her living room and this had impaired her quality of life. She requested that the landlord urgently remind those residents who had not given access to the pest control team to do so.
The Ombudsman can see that Pest Control returned to the resident’s block on 27 June 2019 however was unable to gain access to the resident’s property.
On 30 June 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord challenging a proposed increase in service charges. She explained that she was particularly concerned with some of the items which made up the service charge, such as pest control. She was also displeased that no one had bothered to respond to her communication from 13 June 2019. The resident explained that since then, there had been further cockroach activity. She therefore could not understand how the landlord justified charging for this service when the problem had not been properly dealt with. She reiterated that she had been forced to remove all kitchenware and food from her cupboards to avoid contamination and store them in bags. This was having a detrimental impact on her mental health.
On 5 July 2019 the resident emailed the landlord and explained that a gas engineer had discovered dead cockroaches inside the boiler cover while undertaking an inspection.
On 8 July 2019 the landlord responded to the resident. It apologised that it had not responded to her earlier communication however noted, in relation to the treatment programme, that Pest Control had attempted to access the resident’s property on 27 June 2019 and had not been granted access. Pest Control were therefore unable to advise on whether the resident was able to unpack her belongings and return them to the kitchen. The landlord acknowledged that the issue was a cause for concern, however emphasised that in order for treatments to be effective, residents needed to allow access to their properties.
In January 2020, after several months of no [reported] activity, the resident reported a further sighting. The Ombudsman has been unable to identify the specific date. The Ombudsman notes nonetheless that the Estate Services Officer (ESO) undertook an inspection of the resident’s property on 28 January 2020 and instructed Pest Control to return to monitor the situation.
On 4 February 2020 the resident submitted a stage one complaint. She was displeased that she had again been asked to allow access to treat her flat when other properties in the block had still not been treated. The problem was almost a year old and could not be eradicated if all other flats were not similarly treated. The resident asserted that the landlord needed to urgently coordinate treatment of the whole block to get rid of the cockroach problem once and for all, or to move her. She explained that her living condition was unbearable and that she was still living with all of her kitchenware in bags.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 February 2020. It explained that It would investigate the matter and provide the resident with a full stage one response no later than 18 February 2020.
Pest Control returned to the resident’s property on 7 February 2020 and installed monitors.
On 12 February 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. It stated that it had investigated the resident’s complaint and had found that:
1. It had engaged with Pest Control to treat the flats as necessary.
2. Pest Control had written to tenants on 20 May 2019 (which the Ombudsman has not seen) informing them of visits on 30 May, 13 June and 27 June 2019. Still, there was no access on 30 May 2019 to five flats including the residents, and on 27 June 2019 there was no access to six flats including the residents. It was essential that the contractors completed the treatment in all affected flats to maximize effectiveness.

The landlord confirmed that it would uphold the complaint as it agreed that its approach to gaining access could have been more robust. It acknowledged that it should have contacted tenants where it was unable to gain access. The landlord noted that the resident had engaged (and paid) the local authority to assist with treating the issue. It noted that this may not have been necessary if the resident had allowed access on 30 May and 27 June 2019. The landlord explained that it had arranged a further survey in any case and that access would be required to administer all three treatments.

On 14 February 2020 Pest Control attempted to undertake an inspection of the resident’s property however was unable to gain access. Still, while inspecting other flats, the operative noted several sightings of cockroaches. A course of four sprays and gel treatment was therefore recommended within the affected flats, with several visits to be carried out over a period of four to five weeks.
On 28 February 2020 the resident submitted a further complaint expressing that the landlord had not sufficiently resolved the problem to date. She explained:
1. Not all flats had been properly investigated or treated. The landlord’s previous correspondence referred to flats 1 to 12 however there were 23 flats in the block. As she understood it, cockroaches could crawl through pipework and other crevices. It was therefore likely that the problem had spread to or from other adjoining parts of the property.
2. The landlord had suggested in its stage one response that she had only allowed access on one occasion. She explained that as of the date of this correspondence, her flat had been treated twice by the landlord’s pest control contractors and three times by the local authority.
3. The landlord had failed to acknowledge and to arrange reimbursement of the £127 she had spent to treat the cockroaches.
4. The landlord had not acknowledged her request to move as a result of her living conditions and impact on her mental health.
On 10 March 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to establish whether she was able to provide access to her property for treatment to begin on 16 March 2020. This would be followed up by treatments on 26 March 2020, 9 April 2020 and 23 April 2020.
On 11 March 2020 the landlord chased a response to its correspondence of 10 March 2020.
On 12 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained that while it had hoped to provide a response to her complaint by 17 March 2020, this was not going to be possible. It therefore requested an extension until 31 March 2020. It explained that in the meantime, Pest Control would be instructed to inspect all parts of the block that had not previously been inspected and to arrange any works that were outstanding to be completed. It noted that the resident had still not replied to its earlier emails to confirm an appropriate date for treatment.
A further email was sent by the landlord on 13 March 2020. It explained that it needed confirmation of when the resident was available in order to organise the treatment of all flats. It was more economical for tenants to have the treatment applied at the same time. To offer resident’s enough notice, it would now reschedule treatment to commence on 23 March 2020. This would be followed by treatment on 30 March 2020, 13 April 2020, and 27 April 2020.
On 18 March 2020 following a visit to several properties, Pest Control reported several sightings of cockroaches. It noted that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property. A further recommendation was made for treatment.
On 23 March 2020 the resident requested that the landlord’s complaints panel review her complaint. She stated:
1. It was likely the problem could have spread to and from adjoining parts of the property. There was no evidence suggesting that the cockroaches were confined to her flat.
2. As she had been worried about the cockroach infestation, she had paid the local authority immediately in April 2019 to start treatments covering a period of six weeks.
3. Much attention had been focused on re-treating her property, however this had already been done on five occasions by two organisations. She did not understand why this was the case when there were other properties that had not been treated for the first time or re-treated. She stated that it appeared the landlord believed her flat to be the source of the infestation. She added that until all flats were rigorously treated, the problem would remain.
4. Her request to move had still not been acknowledged. As she had explained, her living conditions and her mental health had been impacted. She did not believe that her flat was fit for habitation.
5. The landlord had not acknowledged or discussed the reimbursement of her costs (£127).

The resident added that the continuous retreatment of her flat while others were in urgent need of investigation was beginning to look like harassment.

The landlord confirmed receipt of this on the same day. It explained, however, that it wished to have the opportunity to resolve the matter at stage two of its process before escalating the matter to its panel. The resident was therefore advised that she needed to await the stage two response.
On 30 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage two response. It noted:
1. Following the resident’s request that it ensure other flats in the building be investigated, it carried out an inspection on all three blocks which made up the estate. It was able to gain access to approximately 75% of the properties at the time and no evidence of cockroaches was found. As the resident and her neighbour had confirmed sight of cockroaches however, a course of treatment was arranged for flats 1-12, the part of the building where the cockroaches were reported.
2. On 30 May 2019 six flats on her side of the building were inspected, along with the communal areas, and no new activity was noted. Again, on 13 June 2019 six flats (mostly those that had already been visited) were inspected along with the communal areas and other than dead cockroaches located in the resident’s kitchen, no activity was noted. Finally, on 27 June 2019, five flats (again mostly the same flats) and the communal areas had been inspected. No new activity was noted.
3. It was explained on 8 July 2019 that for treatment to be effective, they needed to be carried out in full.
4. The resident next reported an issue in January 2020 and a visit was undertaken on 28 January 2020. It was recommended that an inspection be carried out along with any treatment necessary. An appointment was subsequently undertaken on 7 February 2020 during which, one cockroach was identified, and new monitors were put in place. No further action was believed to be necessary.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint on 12 February 2020 it was explained that a further survey of flats 1-12 would be undertaken. This was done on 14 February 2020 in which four flats were accessed (two of which showed evidence of cockroaches). A treatment regime was subsequently recommended for these flats. The landlord explained that the resident’s property was also included as she had previously reported a sighting.
6. An attempt was made to arrange dates in March and April 2020, during which time the flats that had not been previously inspected could also be included, as would the flats in the adjoining block. Access was gained in four flats in the adjoining block and no evidence of cockroaches was found. The remaining residents (with the exception of one) were contacted and reported no evidence of cockroaches.
7. Treatment had commenced on 23 March 2020 however it was only able to gain entry into one flat. It stated that it would, however, contact residents not providing access and encourage them to do so.

The landlord was therefore satisfied that the appropriate action was being taken. It concluded:

While it was unclear why the resident sought pest control services from the local authority, it would reimburse the costs incurred by the resident on this occasion.
The resident had the right to apply for a transfer and it would be happy to arrange for these forms to be sent to her. It would be unable to move her with immediate effect however, or to offer priority as a result of the complaint. It explained that it believed the redress and arrangements proposed in this correspondence to be sufficient.
Its decision to embark on a monitoring regime of only flats 1-12 was in view of the survey of all three blocks in May 2019 which found no evidence of the presence of cockroaches elsewhere. It acknowledged however that there had been a service failure as it did not make robust arrangements to access other flats. The landlord explained it would offer £100 in recognition of this.
The report from the inspection on 18 March 2020 indicated that the problem was confined to flats 1-12. A treatment regime had therefore been put in place. The landlord noted that the resident had not made access available for either of the first two treatment visits (on 23 and 30 March 2020) and requested access on 13 and 27 April 2020.

The landlord wrote to all tenants on 21 April 2020. It explained that Pest Control could not gain access to all flats however based on a telephone survey, five flats were experiencing cockroaches. The landlord explained that access was necessary, or the effectiveness of the treatment would be impeded. While it appeared to be confined to a small group of flats, it noted that cockroaches sometimes migrated to other properties. Tenants were asked to be vigilant and report any sightings.
On 27 April 2020 the landlord accessed and treated four of the five properties believed to be affected by the infestation.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s previous request for a panel review and proposed to undertake the meeting on 6 May 2020. It explained that this would be conducted via telephone or video conference, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The resident was asked to confirm that this was suitable, by 30 April 2020.
On 12 May 2020 Pest Control applied treatment to the resident’s property. Low activity was found.
The panel review took place on 18 June 2020. Notes suggest that the resident was in attendance. Follow up questions were sent to the resident on 19 June 2020 which the Ombudsman can see the resident responded to on 22 June 2020.
Further treatment was applied at the resident’s property on the same day.
On 2 July 2020 the landlord provided the resident with the stage three panel outcome. It provided the resident with a summary of events and added that:
1. Pest control had reported that dead cockroaches were found in the resident’s kitchen on 13 June 2019. As there was no evidence of cockroaches anywhere else however, it was thought that the treatment the resident had arranged had been successful. Pest control also carried out inspections in several other flats and on this occasion, no cockroach activity was found.
2. No further arrangements were made for pest control to visit the property and no further reports were made in 2019. It was therefore assumed that the problem had been eradicated.
3. In 2020 cockroach activity was considered to be likely in six flats. Subsequently, monitoring and treatment was organised for 23 March 2020, 30 March 2020, 13 April 2020, and 27 April 2020. On 23 March 2020 the resident declined access to her property as the Pest Control operative had not worn the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This was taken up with Pest Control. The resident suggested (during the panel meeting) that this was also the case on 30 March 2020 and 13 April 2020 however this was never reported.

The panel concluded that it had not always managed the cockroach infestation effectively. While the resident’s refusal (and the refusal of other tenants) to provide access to the property made this difficult, it acknowledged that it should have taken more pro-active steps to obtain access. The landlord believed that in light of the survey results following the inspection on 1 May 2020, it was reasonable to assume that this was just a small outbreak which could be treated as a localized matter. It recognised, however, that when the resident had written on 30 June 2019, the problem should have been re-inspected. Similarly, the landlord noted that after the resident’s reports of cockroaches in January 2020, it should have commissioned treatment of all flats. It acknowledged that it had been incorrect about the route of access for cockroaches from one side of the building to another and accepted that it should have done more once it became clear that there was an infestation.

To put things right, the landlord subsequently concluded that it would:

Undertake a full block treatment and bear the cost of this rather than passing this on to residents through service charges. Residents who failed to give access unreasonably would, however, be charged for the treatment.

Offer £100 compensation for the impact of any cockroach activity between April 2019 and January 2020, in addition to a refund for the amount the resident had already paid when she initially arranged treatment.
Offer £400 compensation for the activity between January 2020 and June 2020, in light of its failure to carry out a whole block treatment.
Review the resident’s transfer request in light of the cockroach activity and impact on the resident’s mental health.
Review its policies and procedures relating to pest control.

The Ombudsman can see that there were several treatments and inspections following this, including a full block treatment on 3 and 17 July 2020.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident was awarded a Management Transfer on the grounds that there was clear evidence that continuing to reside at the property would cause serious damage to her emotional wellbeing.
It appears that the property became free from cockroaches on 7 January 2021. Tenants were advised on 17 January 2021 that all service charges for the monitoring and treatment of the cockroach infestation in 2020 would also be waived. The landlord has also since advised this Service of the changes to its policy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a cockroach infestation in her block

In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a cockroach infestation was fair. As per the Pest Control policy, where the landlord had established that the infestation had impacted more than one household, it was required to make appropriate arrangements with its Pest Control team to begin addressing the issue. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did this soon after the resident’s report in April 2019. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for other properties to be inspected and on 1 May 2019, instructed its Pest Control team to inspect all three blocks. What’s more, upon gaining access to 75% of the properties, and confirming no evidence of cockroaches, the landlord undertook a precautionary three-part monitoring programme in the area of the building (flats 1-12) where the report had been made. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was appropriate.
The Ombudsman is content that the landlord’s three-part monitoring programme, reviewed on 30 May 2019, 13 June 2019 and 27 June 2019, showed no evidence of an active infestation, and confirmed for the landlord that no treatment needed to be applied. It was reasonable to assume that the dead cockroaches found in the resident’s property on 13 June 2019 (the only date that access was granted) resulted from successful treatment applied by the local authority and with no further reports, that the issue had been contained.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion however, upon learning that the resident had identified further cockroach activity in her property (as explained in her correspondence on 30 June 2019 and in an email on 5 July 2019), the landlord should have arranged for a re-inspection. The Ombudsman cannot see that any action was taken however or that the landlord provided the resident with any advice on her options. This was inappropriate. While the resident made no further reports until January 2020, the Ombudsman is displeased that the landlord failed to follow this up with her in the months prior, especially as the resident had advised that she continued to live out of bags.
The Ombudsman is satisfied though, that the landlord recognised this failure in its final response in July 2020 and made an offer of redress which was fair. The Ombudsman acknowledges that while the landlord was not obligated to do so, it agreed to refund the resident for the treatment she had arranged / paid for in early April 2019 and made an additional offer of £100 compensation for its failure to make adequate arrangements. This was proportionate. As there were no reports between 6 July 2019 to January 2020 (from the resident or any other tenant), it was fair to assume that there was little activity during this period. The offer of compensation therefore fairly accounted for the landlord’s oversight.
Similarly, while the Ombudsman has identified several failings in the landlord’s approach following the resident’s report in January 2020, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress which was ultimately satisfactory in putting things right. Upon confirming the presence of a cockroach on 7 February 2020, although not explicitly recommended by its Pest Control team at the time, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to coordinate an inspection of all properties within this block. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord attempted to do this, firstly attempting to inspect flats 1-12 on 14 February 2020, and then later flats 1-23 where evidence of activity had been found. The Ombudsman notes however that the landlord failed to successfully inspect several properties as it was unable to gain access. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, tenants are required to provide the landlord (or its representatives) access for the purpose of treating and eradicating pests. The landlord therefore should have enforced this right once it had confirmed that the infestation was not an isolated issue and given tenant’s fair notification while reminding them of their obligation under the agreement. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this or that it took any forceful action to ensure access to all properties (although it did write to all residents to encourage access on 21 April 2020). While the landlord did speak to some residents via telephone and questioned the presence of cockroaches, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was insufficient.
Moreover, in much of the landlord’s correspondence to the resident, it emphasised that in order to maximize effectiveness, all affected properties needed to be treated. It was therefore reasonable (as the landlord was unable to inspect all properties and therefore to confirm which were affected) for the landlord to coordinate treatment of the whole block. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord attempted to do this in March 2020, and this was appropriate. It appears, however, that the landlord again failed to enforce its right to entry and to ensure that all properties were treated. This, as the landlord suggested, would have undermined the treatment and impacted its effectiveness. It is unclear how many properties were treated on 30 March 2020 however the Ombudsman notes that on 13 April 2020 only four properties were treated and on 27 April, 12 May and 19 June 2020, treatment and monitoring was only carried out in six flats. While the resident did contribute towards this issue (as access was not always permitted), ultimately the landlord should have taken further steps to fulfil its responsibility.
Still, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord recognised this in its final response. The landlord noted that it should have commissioned a block treatment upon learning of further activity in January 2020 and acknowledged that it had been under the incorrect impression that there was no route of access for cockroaches on one side of the building to the other. The landlord expressed that while there was significant difficulty gaining access to flats, it should have taken more robust and pro-active action to obtain this. The landlord subsequently made an offer of £400 compensation to account for its failure. This was appropriate. The landlord also advised that it would be reviewing its policies and procedures and the Ombudsman can see that a full block treatment was undertaken on 3 and 17 July 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was fair.
The Ombudsman appreciates that as a result of the infestation, the resident reported that she was no longer able to enjoy her home. The resident therefore requested that the landlord move her to a different property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not an unfair request given the circumstance. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord was under no obligation to fulfil this request. The Ombudsman has therefore considered it reasonable that the landlord informed the resident within its stage two response that it would be happy to assist her in applying for a transfer. The landlord also advised that the resident’s request would be reviewed to take into account the impact on her mental health and following the final response, awarded the resident a Management Transfer on this basis. This was fair.
Finally, the Ombudsman has also been unable to identify any evidence suggesting that the landlord believed the resident’s property to be the source of the infestation or that it was singling the resident out.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

As per the landlord’s complaints policy, complaint responses should be provided within 10 working days. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord was unable to uphold this following the resident’s stage two complaint submission. The landlord did, however, advise the resident that it required further time before it was able to offer a response and proposed a new timeframe which it was able to meet. This was appropriate and in line with the recommended approach within the policy.
Moreover, as the resident had requested that her complaint be escalated to the landlord’s complaints panel, it was reasonable for the landlord to accommodate this in June 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the resident made this request before the landlord had provided a stage two response. The landlord therefore responded at stage two initially before escalating the resident’s complaint to its panel. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident resubmitted a request to have the complaint escalated to the landlord’s panel, after receiving the stage two response. The Ombudsman has therefore not considered the length of time taken for the landlord to confirm that the resident’s complaint would be considered by its panel. Moreover, the Ombudsman acknowledges that due to the impact of COVID-19, the arrangement of the panel was slightly delayed. The Ombudsman appreciates that an adjustment was subsequently made, with the panel taking place via video conference.
As per the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a two-stage process would have enabled the resident to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process and to bring her complaint to this Service for investigation within good time. This is the recommended sector practice. Still, the Ombudsman is satisfied that on this occasion, the landlord’s stage three panel offered the landlord the opportunity to reconsider its earlier response, its omissions, and to take steps to put things right. The Ombudsman is therefore content with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman is also aware that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to accommodate a more succinct and efficient two stage complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a cockroach infestation in her block, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. The landlord acknowledged its failure to make appropriate arrangements to inspect the resident’s property following her reports in June and July 2019. In its final response, it recognised that it would have been reasonable to reassess the level of activity at the property and to take the necessary action. It subsequently made a proportionate offer of redress to account for any activity which may have occurred (although no further reports were made) between April 2019 and January 2020. This was fair.

What’s more, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord recognised within its final response that it should have undertaken a block treatment to ensure that all properties were adequately treated. Its failure to enforce the conditions of the tenancy agreement and to ensure access to all properties resulted in several properties going uninspected and untreated (assumedly hindering the effectiveness of the treatment). Still, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord acknowledged this failure and took adequate steps to put things right. Treatment of the whole block was coordinated in July 2020 and an offer of compensation to account for the delay in doing so was also made. The landlord also reviewed its approach to tackling/treating pests and made reasonable arrangements for the resident to obtain a priority transfer. This was appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint was in line with its complaints policy. The landlord accommodated the resident’s request to have her complaint considered by the review panel and appropriately used this opportunity to recognise its service failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response was fair and while slightly delayed, adequate in resolving the complaint.