Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202221253)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221253

GreenSquareAccord Limited

19 June 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 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 the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house, both he and his wife are aged over 70, and she has a medical condition.
  2. After describing having previously experienced many years of rat infestations at the property that were unsuccessfully responded to, on 15 October 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that rats had chewed through his property’s central heating pipe, which caused a loss of hot water and heating from then onwards. An engineer from it attended this on the same day, and they drained the heating and hot water system to prevent flooding, but they refused to repair the pipe until the rats had been dealt with. The resident therefore contacted the landlord about this on 17 October 2022, and it informed him that the rats would be dealt with.
  3. On 20 October 2022, a surveyor attended the resident’s property and inspected the external walls. They stated that there were no obvious holes for the rats to gain access to the property’s cavities, but that the loft could be baited to investigate how the rats were gaining access.
  4. On 9 November 2022, a pest control specialist contractor attended the resident’s property and baited drains at the front of the property and the loft. When the contractor laid the traps in the loft, a deceased rat was discovered in a trap set by the resident, and a deceased rat was found in the dining room wall cavity which led to the wall having to be cut out. The damaged central heating pipe was subsequently repaired by an engineer on 10 November 2021, but the property’s boiler could not be started until further works were completed by another engineer who did not turn up, which meant that the resident was still without heating and hot water. The pest control specialists then attended the property again on 11 November 2022.
  5. The resident therefore raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 12 November 2022. He stated that he had been dealing with rat infestations in the property for approximately 12 years, and that a previous attempt to resolve the problem had been unsuccessful. As a resolution, the resident asked for the landlord to resolve the infestation, and for the heating pipework repair to be completed. He also reported that its pest control specialist contractor could not inspect his neighbour’s drains for the rat infestation, as they did not have permission to do so, but that the neighbour had then requested this.
  6. On 14 November 2022, the pipework for the central heating was repaired, however a further repair to the boiler for a leak was required that was due on the same day. The landlord’s pest control specialists subsequently attended the property once more on 18 November 2022. The resident then contacted it on 23 November 2022, stating that, after two days of heavy rain, rats had managed to gain access to the property again, including in the loft area. The landlord went on to complete a repair for a hole in the ceiling from the leak from the heating pipework on 24 November 2022.
  7. On 25 November 2022, the landlord’s pest control specialists attended the property and completed an inspection and survey for the further rat infestation that the resident had reported. They identified no rodent activity there, but they did identify a small hole in the loft area, which could have provided the rats with access to the property that a repair order was raised for and completed on 9 December 2022. The pest control specialists also recommended that drain flaps be looked into to help prevent the movement of rodents in the future.
  8. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued on 8 December 2022, for which it had previously informed the resident that it had extended its response timescale while it was awaiting further information. It explained that, while pest control within his property was usually his responsibility under his tenancy agreement, the unresolved ongoing situation that he had reported had meant that it had agreed to check the property for any underlying reasons for this recurring. The landlord confirmed that its pest control specialists’ subsequent visits on 11, 18 and 25 November 2022 had led to no more rat activity being identified or requiring further visits by their last attendance, for which it had arranged the above repair, and so it declined to uphold the complaint as it found no failures.
  9. The resident’s final stage complaint of 8 December 2022 nevertheless disputed that there were no failures in the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation at the property. He complained that its pest control specialists had still gone on to see a deceased rat caught in one of his traps, and that they and both of its engineers had smelt another deceased rat in his dining room.
  10. In its final stage complaint response on 9 December 2022, the landlord stated that its pest control specialists had completed the above three visits and there was no sign of activity or further action identified as necessary, however one access point was in the property for which a repair had been arranged. Therefore, it stated that it had completed its pest infestation treatment and survey over and above the service that it usually provided as a goodwill gesture, given that this was the tenant’s responsibility, and that any further pest control actions would have to be taken by the resident as per the tenancy agreement, for which it referred him to the local authority.
  11. The resident then complained to this Service that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to complete further inspections as to how the rats gained access to his property to ensure that their access was closed off. This was because this was still an ongoing issue, despite him having sealed holes as advised by its pest control specialists, and after the local authority had attended, for which he requested a further investigation by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the property’s structure and exterior, including the walls and floors, in repair and working order. Its tenants are responsible for pest control within its properties. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that residents are responsible for pest control including the removal of rats within properties, except where this is due to a failure of an element of the building structure such as holes in the exterior walls, requiring it to attend routine repairs within 28 calendar days.

Scope of investigation

  1. While it is very concerning that the resident reports that he has experienced rat infestations at his property for approximately 12 years, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while the previous infestations have been mentioned in this report to provide context to his complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from May 2022 onwards, which is six months prior to his formal complaint in November 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation

  1. As per the responsive repairs policy, the landlord would only have been responsible for treating a pest infestation at the resident’s property if this was due to a failure in the element of the building structure there, such as holes in the exterior walls of the property allowing access to rats. As this could have led to the rats chewing through his central heating pipe as he reported on 17 October 2022, it should have attended the property within 28 calendar days under the policy, to complete an inspection to determine whether it was responsible for this.
  2. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 October 2022, when its surveyor inspected the external walls there, which was three calendar days after the resident reported that there was a rat infestation that needed to be addressed in the property. Therefore, it attended the property for this within its responsive repairs policy’s timescale, which was appropriate.
  3. As the landlord’s surveyor’s inspection found no obvious holes for the rats to gain access to the property’s cavities, but that the loft could be baited to investigate how the rats were gaining access, it was suitable that it then hired specialist contractors to attend the property and complete pest treatments there. This included setting bait and traps within its responsive repairs policy’s 28-calendar-day timescale on 9, 11 and 18 November 2022, and inspecting and surveying the exterior walls and the interior on 25 November 2022. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, as the pest control contractors were specialists able to identify and treat the rat infestation.
  4. The pest control contractors’ inspection and survey on 25 November 2022 found that, after three visits, there was no evidence of rats in the property and, as such, the treatment plan was completed. The landlord was entitled to rely upon its specialist contractors’ expert opinion that there was no further rodent activity identified in the property, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, and that the sealing of a small hole in the loft area on 9 December 2022 would ensure that access could be gained by rats through this in the future. It was also appropriate that it arranged for the hole to be sealed within 28 calendar days of the contractors’ recommendation that it do so, in accordance with its responsive repairs policy.
  5. It is nevertheless of concern that the pest control specialists additionally recommended on 25 November 2022 that the landlord consider that drain flaps be looked into to help prevent the movement of rodents in the future, but there is no evidence that it did so. As the resident also previously reported that the specialists could not inspect the drains on his neighbour’s property because they did not have permission to do so but the neighbour had subsequently requested this, it is concerning that there is no evidence that this occurred either. This is in light of the resident complaining to this Service that the rat infestation was still an ongoing issue, for which the access still needed to be identified and closed off.
  6. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to consider looking into drain flaps at the resident’s property to help prevent the movement of rodents there in the future, as well as to respond to any requests for its pest control specialists to inspect his neighbour’s drains, if it has not done so already. This is as a result of the specialist pest control recommendations to this effect.
  7. It is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy that the landlord stated that any further pest infestation treatment at his property would need to be completed privately or via the local authority. However, it provided him with the correct advice under its responsive repairs policy that, if the rats returned, it would be his responsibility to complete any pest control treatment if this was not due to a failure in an element of the building structure.
  8. Although it is of concern that the landlord’s complaint responses did not state this explicitly, and that these instead suggested that it had only arranged pest control at the resident’s property as a goodwill gesture when it was responsible for this when there were, for example, holes in the exterior walls. Therefore, it has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its responsive repairs policy in relation to pest control, to ensure that this is followed and clearly and explicitly communicated to its residents in every case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Consider looking into drain flaps at the resident’s property to help prevent the movement of rodents there in the future, as well as to respond to any requests for its pest control specialists to inspect his neighbour’s drains, if it has not done so already.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its responsive repairs policy in relation to pest control, to ensure that this is followed and clearly and explicitly communicated to its residents in every case.