Clarion Housing Association Limited (202100482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100482

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 April 2023

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 concerns the level of compensation offered to the resident following reports of a pest infestation in her property.

Background

2. The resident lives in a ground floor flat and holds a fixed term tenancy, which began on 2 May 2018.
3. The resident says that she had been reporting issues of mice in her property since approximately 2019, but as her tenancy agreement stated that pest control was her responsibility, the landlord did not help her to resolve the issue.
4. Following contact from the resident, the landlord arranged for a pest contractor to visit in December 2020. A recommendation was made to carry out proofing works, including repairs to the ‘recess area containing the water tank’ and proofing around and beneath boiler unit. Minor proofing works were carried out on 12 January 2021.
5. The pest control contractor visited the resident’s home again on 19 January 2021 and reported that on inspection, it found no fresh or current pest activity noted by way of rodenticide consumption, and all accessible bait stations had been serviced and maintained. It further said that there were no dead mice or carcasses found at time of the visit.
6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 April 2021 stating that she was still experiencing problems with mice in her home, and requested compensation due to the issues. This Service contacted the landlord to help facilitate a local resolution on 6 May 2021, and a stage one complaint was logged on 11 May 2021.
7. On 28 May 2021, the landlord responded, and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it was a resident’s responsibility to deal with pests within their property. However, it did say that it had arranged for the pest control contractor to attend the property and carry out proofing works on 25 May 2021.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 May 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the response. The resident said that as the pests were entering her home through holes, it was the landlord’s responsibility to deal with it.
9. The landlord issued a final response on 3 August 2021, which confirmed:
   1. An appointment had been booked to complete further proofing works on 3 August 2021.
   2. An offer of £465 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, its failure to follow process, and delays.
10. Following referral to this Service on 19 November 2021, the resident has confirmed that she is dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord because of:
    1. The length of time the pest issue was ongoing for.
    2. The amount of money she had spent on replacing belongings, car parking costs when she was moved to a hotel, and other associated costs.
    3. As a result of the pests, she had developed mental health issues including PTSD, which she is receiving treatment for.
    4. She lost her job as a result of the issues within her home.

Assessment and findings

11. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed  from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and.
3. learn from outcomes.

13. The landlord’s tenancy management policy specifies that the responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, residents and the local authority. If it is the resident’s responsibility, it will provide advice on the best action to take. The policy specifies that the landlord’s responsibilities include:
    1. Identifying and blocking any potential access points in the structure of a property.
    2. Arranging for the eradication of pests in a resident’s home where the problem is clearly traced to an infestation in a communal area.
    3. Undertaking or arranging treatment where a whole block or several flats are affected.
14. The tenancy agreement also specifies that residents are responsible for preventing and eradicating any pests such as mice and rats within the home and garden. Whilst it does not confirm the landlord’s responsibility, it would nevertheless, be for it to ensure the pests are not entering through a defect in the property.
15. The resident informed this Service that she had been experiencing issues with mice for a number of years. Following a request from the landlord for information regarding reports of pest issues, the information provided showed that the resident first reported pests to the landlord in December 2020. The landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to attend in good time, and as noted above, no mouse activity was found. However, while minor proofing was done in January 2021, the landlord should have followed up on the recommendation to carry out the proofing works to the recess area containing the water tank and around and beneath boiler unit. There is no evidence that it did so at the time.
16. This Service has not been provided with information that shows that new sightings were reported to the landlord until a complaint was submitted via this Service in April 2021. When the landlord received the resident’s complaint, it chased up the pest control contractor regarding the proofing works that it had recommended in December 2021 (which were done on 25 May 2021, a delay of five months), and also arranged for a baiting program to be implemented. This shows that the landlord was taking steps to put things right for the resident. The reports from the pest control contractors show that there was no pest activity in May 2021.
17. Following the resident’s stage two escalation, although proofing works were carried out in January and May 2021, the resident remained dissatisfied as there was still a hole under the water tank. It is unclear whether this hole is the same entry point that the landlord had been carrying out proofing work on. However, as the landlord agreed to carry out further proofing works, it shows that there was still an issue with entry points and it remained the landlord’s responsibility to ensure work was carried out to rectify the issues in a timely manner.
18. Records show that this work was not completed until November 2021, nearly a year after the recommendation for works was made, and therefore it failed to meet its obligation to carry the work out in a timely manner. Whilst the pest control reports showed that there was no new pest activity, the landlord was aware of the resident’s phobia of mice and how this was affecting her mental health.  Overall, it took eleven months from the pest control contractor’s recommendation, for the proofing works to be fully completed . During this time, there will have been some considerable distress caused to the resident, including moving the resident to a hotel so the works could be completed.
19. As part of the landlord’s final response, it offered the resident £465 compensation in recognition of the identified failings. It is not clear how much of the compensation is for the failings associated with the pest control, as the stage two response also addressed a separate repairs issue. With that in mind, this Service will assume that around half (so £235) was for the pest control failings.
20. This Service welcomes the landlord’s approach and there is evidence to show that it is applying the dispute resolution principles to its complaint handling. It is the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the amount offered was fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
21. The resident has informed this Service that she feels she is entitled to a higher amount of compensation. Where the Ombudsman orders compensation, it must be able to directly link the adverse effect the resident has suffered with the landlord’s failings.
22. It is clear that the landlord failed to address the hole under the water tank in a timely manner, and it also failed to follow its own processes when it did not provide the resident with any advice on the best action to take in relation to pest issues, as detailed in its own tenancy management policy. This amounts to service failure and would attract a level of compensation.
23. When a landlord has promised to put things right via its complaint procedure, it should do so promptly. Avoidable delays will add to the distress and inconvenience caused to a resident and undermine the trust and confidence a resident has in their landlord.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy recommends awards of between £250 – £700, where it finds considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. It is this Service’s view that the amount offered by the landlord does not fairly reflect the adverse effect on the resident.
25. The Ombudsman’s remedy guide for compensation where there has been service failure which have had no permanent impact but has had an adverse effect, awards of £100 – £600 are considered appropriate. Therefore, an award of £425 is felt to be more fair in the circumstances. This takes into account the distress the resident experienced due to her phobia of mice, alongside the evidence that suggests that no recent mouse activity was found by pest control contractors.
26. The resident has further asked for compensation for costs she has incurred from having to redecorate, replace belongings which were damaged due to the pest infestation, and reimbursement for expenses she incurred as a result of her move to the hotel. This Service acknowledges that the resident may have incurred these expenses but without evidence that shows there was an infestation of mice during the period in question, confirmation of the damage and/or receipts, is unable to reasonably conclude that compensation is due.
27. Finally, while this Service was sorry to learn of the mental health issues that the resident has described, this investigation is unable to determine a casual link between these and the landlord’s actions. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue has been caused or made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled the reports of pests in her home. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. Similarly, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the resident lost her job due to the actions of the landlord.
28. In summary, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £425 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience suffered as a result of the delays the resident experienced by the landlord’s failure to carry out the proofing works.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding the level of compensation offered to the resident following the reports of a pest infestation

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £425, which includes the original £235 offered (if the £235 has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total). The payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
    2. Consider further compensation in relation to additional expenses and damaged belongings, if the resident is able to provide details and evidence of this.