Midland Heart Limited (202000360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000360

Midland Heart Limited

29 March 2021 [amended 02 July 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 concerns the level of compensation offered to the resident following his reports of a pest infestation in his property.

Background and summary of events

On 3 December 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that he had cockroaches in his property. He said that he believed that the pests were coming from behind his boiler. According to the landlord’s records, it advised the resident to contact the local authority for pest treatment.
Contractors then visited the property on 4 December 2019 in order to carry out a full inspection. According to the landlord’s internal correspondence, the contractors could not find any evidence to suggest that the pests were coming in from behind the boiler. Nevertheless, they arranged for the boiler to be removed in order to fill in any holes at the rear, and then reinstated the boiler.
On 20 December 2019 the resident called landlord to confirm the appointment that was due the same day with the contractors. The landlord advised him the appointment was booked for 15 January 2020 and that the contractors would not be able to attend before then.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 December 2019 to ask whether he could bring the bring forward his appointment with the contractors. He was advised on the phone that his appointment had been moved to 20 January 2020. According to the landlord’s records, it advised the resident to contact the local authority for pest treatment.
The landlord says that on 3 January 2020 contractors attended the property, removed the boiler, filled in the holes and reinstated the boiler. The resident disputes that any holes were sealed on this visit.
On 4 February 2020 after the resident had contacted the landlord to say that he still had a pest problem in his property, it escalated the issue.
Pest control operatives then attended the property on 14 February 2020. They completed a spray treatment and placed traps in the kitchen and bathroom. They also said that they would need to have access to behind the boiler in order to check for access points and activity.
On 14 February 2020 a surveyor advised the landlord to decant (temporarily move) the resident due to the severity of the pest infestation and also because the boiler needed to be removed.
The boiler was removed on 17 February 2020 in order for pest treatment to go ahead.
From the evidence provided for this investigation, it is unclear when exactly the resident raised his formal complaint. It was either 21 or 24 February 2020. His complaint was about the pest infestation in his property and the landlord’s delays in addressing the issue.
Pest control operatives advised the landlord on 2 March 2020 that the resident could wash their soft furnishings and that nothing had been found to suggest that he would have to dispose of any furniture. They also confirmed that the infestation had originated from behind the boiler.
On 5 March 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said that it was working alongside its pest control operatives in order to “fully treat the affected areas”. It said that it would reimburse the resident for his food expenses whilst he was decanted. It said that after the final treatment had been completed on 11 March 2020, he would be able to return to his property on 13 March 2020.
It acknowledged that the resident had said he was considering disposing of his furniture and explained that its pest control operatives had advised that this was unnecessary. It said that if the resident did choose to dispose of his goods, he would need to make a claim on his contents insurance as the landlord could not reimburse him for this.
It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £70 compensation due to the delays, non-attendance of appointments, and its lack of communication with the resident.
The landlord advised the resident that he could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if he was not satisfied with this outcome.
Pest control operatives attended the property on 11 March 2020 to carry out further treatment. They said that an infestation was still present but could not complete further treatment until the hole for the flue pipe had been sealed.
The resident moved back into the property on 13 March 2020. The landlord visited that day with its gas contractor who installed a new boiler. However, the flue was not sealed correctly as the contractor had to unexpectedly leave early for an emergency.
The resident reported to the landlord on 16 March 2020 that he had a new pest infestation. The resident said that this was due to the unsealed flue.
A contractor attended on 16 March 2020 for a “temporary fix” of the flue and then on 19 March 2020 it was sealed correctly.
On 17 March 2020 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the work carried out to his boiler and property had not resolved his pest issue. Following this conversation, he then sent the landlord an email. In this email he asked whether the boiler had been commissioned when it was installed on 13 March 2020. He said that he had been made aware that due to the flue not being sealed correctly, “products of combustion” could have entered his property and put his family at risk.
On 20 March 2020 pest control operatives confirmed with the landlord that it was safe for the resident to stay in the property whilst they carried out further treatment.
Pest control operatives attended the property on 30 March 2020 as the holes had been sealed. They carried out treatment and arranged for a follow-up visit.
Pest control operatives attended the property on 6 April 2020. They could not detect any recent sign of activity and removed the bait stations. They concluded that no further visits were needed at this time.
On 7 April 2020 the landlord called the resident in order to discuss his complaint escalation. It explained that it needed additional time to review his complaint and apologised for this.
According to an email from the gas contractor to the landlord on 8 April 2020, the boiler was commissioned on the same day that it was installed, and all required gas-safety checks were completed.
On 9 April 2020 the gas contractor sent the landlord an email. He said that despite the flue having been left unsealed “the risks to the customer would [haven been] very low indeed”.
On 9 April 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that its stage two complaint response would be delayed and apologised for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2020. This email is summarised below:
1. He said that the landlord’s previous offer of compensation (£70), had not taken into consideration his damaged possessions, damaged food which needed to be replaced, or that there had been a “hole in the kitchen which was left unaddressed”.
2. He said that the work by the contractors had “so many failings on so many levels”.
3. He said that “dangerous levels of carbon monoxide” could be released if there was a fault with the flue.
4. He asked to be compensated for the above points.
On 17 April 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It said that it had taken reasonable steps to remove the boiler to allow him to treat the infestation. It said that it had gone “above and beyond [its] responsibilities” by carrying out treatment and decanting him whilst this work was done. It advised the resident to make a claim on his contents insurance for the damages to his furniture.
It said that the gas-safety checks were carried out effectively and completed in line with regulatory requirements. It said there was no health or safety risk to him but advised him of how he could make a claim for personal injury.
The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked the landlord in an email on 17 April 2020 why a carbon monoxide alarm was not fitted by his boiler. The landlord replied on the same day and said that its gas team had confirmed that there was not legal requirement for it to install this this alarm near his boiler.

Assessment and findings

According to the landlord’s website, residents are responsible for dealing with any pests and vermin within their property. However, if the resident believes that the pests have entered into the property through a “small hole” they should then advise the landlord of this. Also, according to the landlord’s repair responsibility tool, it is responsible for repairs to the boiler. It is therefore understandable that the resident contacted the landlord on 3 December 2019 to advise it of his pest issue as he believed that the pests were accessing his property from behind the boiler which would have fallen under the landlord’s remit.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it offered the resident £70 compensation in light of the delays, lack of communication, and the non-attendance of appointments. According to the landlord’s website, it will aim to attend to a non-emergency repair (anything that will not cause an immediate health, safety, or security risk) within 28 days. In this circumstance the resident first reported the issue on 3 December 2019 and contractors attended the following day to investigate his concerns. This was in line with the repairs policy. However, he then waited until 3 January 2020 before the contractors attended again. During this time, an appointment scheduled for 20 December 2019 was cancelled and rearranged twice. Pest control operatives then attended on 14 February 2020, more than two months after he had first reported the issue to the landlord.
Nonetheless, the landlord recognised its delays and offered appropriate redress for this. It also arranged for the resident to be decanted whilst treatment to the property was underway in order to reduce any further inconvenience. According to its compensation matrix, £70 is deemed as a high offer in circumstances when the resident has been inconvenienced. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its shortcomings and then put things right by offering compensation. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings at this point of the complaint.
However, the landlord did not give any consideration to the inconvenience caused to the resident, which its compensation matrix allows for. The resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions to report that the problem had not been resolved and had attempted to complain which the landlord delayed in responding to. The family were also decanted from the property; while the landlord covered the cost of this accommodation and offered to reimburse the resident for evidenced costs in accordance with its decant policy, the circumstances still caused inconvenience which may have been avoidable had the landlord’s response to your reports been more in line with its policies and procedures.
However, it did not take into consideration that the resident had faced further inconveniences and delays once he had moved back into his property following the period of decantation. On 13 March 2020 when the boiler was reinstated, the flue was not sealed correctly. The resident then reported on 16 March 2020 that there was another pest infestation in his property and that the pests were accessing the property through this unsealed flue. The landlord had advised the resident in its stage one complaint response that pest control operatives would have completed their final treatment by 11 March 2020 before the resident had moved back in. However, this was not the case as further treatments were put on hold and not completed until 30 March 2020 as the flue needed to be sealed. Even though pest control operatives confirmed that it was safe for the resident to move back into the property whilst further treatment took place, the landlord had failed to fulfil the resident’s expectations that the work would have been completed by the time he had moved back in. According to the landlord’s decantation policy “customers will be expected to return to their original property upon the completion of works”. However, this was not the case as the resident had spent almost a month away from his property and upon his return, the works had not been completed and the issue had not been resolved.
Although the landlord did take appropriate steps to reseal the flue, it did not offer the resident compensation in light of its failure to complete work during this decantation period which had in turn caused further avoidable delays. The length of time it took the landlord to resolve the issue from when it was first made aware in December 2019 is not sufficient and does warrant financial compensation as the delays caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
The resident said that the unsealed flue had put himself and his family at risk due to the exposure of “products of combustions” and carbon monoxide. He therefore asked the landlord to compensate him for this risk they had faced. In response to this, the landlord explained that its gas contractors had confirmed that there were no health and safety issues within the property. It then advised the resident that he could make a claim for personal injury if he wanted to pursue this issue. It is reasonable that the landlord would have relied on its qualified contractor’s opinion that the resident and his family had not faced any risk. Also, under paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and his family.
The resident had also asked the landlord to be compensated for his damaged goods as a result of the pest infestation. The landlord explained that it had received confirmation from its pest control operatives that it was not necessary for the resident to dispose of his belongings. It then explained that it was therefore the resident’s decision whether he disposed of his goods and if he chose to do so, he could have to make a claim on his own contents insurance as the landlord would not reimburse him for this. The tenancy agreement advises residents that they are responsible for their own personal belongings and that they should take out insurance to cover them. Therefore, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s request to be compensated for his damaged goods was reasonable. It is entitled to rely on the expertise of its the pest control operatives and it explained throughout the complaint procedure that that it was not obliged to compensate residents for this. It effectively managed his expectations and offered appropriate advice as to how he could obtain the outcome that he was seeking.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this circumstance, the landlord initially acted reasonably and recognised in its stage one complaint response that its delays had inconvenienced the resident and offered reasonable redress in light of this. However, it failed to acknowledge in its stage two complaint response that there had been further delays and failings on its behalf or attempt to put things right for the resident. Although it explained that the unsealed flue would not have posed any risks to the resident, the incomplete job meant that the resident was put back in the same position as he had been in before the decant and was further inconvenienced by the ongoing pest infestation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the level of compensation offered to the resident following his reports of a pest infestation.

Reasons

Although the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its stage one complaint response, it failed to acknowledge that there had been further failings in its stage two response and offer appropriate compensation in light of this.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £220. This is made up of £150 for the inconvenience and delay he experienced and includes the £70 already offered by the landlord in its response to the complaint.
This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.