Ongo Homes Limited (202015902)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015902

Ongo Homes Limited

26 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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in her property.
2. The resident’s concerns regarding the pest control company arranged by the landlord and the camera placed in her loft.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a mid-terraced house.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 7 January 2021 to report that she could hear rats in her attic. She was advised that this would be the tenant’s responsibility and that she should contact a pest control service. The resident was not satisfied with this response. She called again later that day and explained that the infestation was also affecting the neighbouring properties. She had contacted the local authority’s pest control department who had said that this would, therefore, be the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. The landlord emailed the resident the following day and confirmed that it would send its pest contractors. It attached its pest policy procedure and confirmed that the landlord would not usually attend if this was only affecting her property.
The landlord’s pest contractor attended on 9 January 2021 but found no evidence of pests within the loft space.
Following this report, the resident hired her own pest control company. The resident’s contractor confirmed that there was a rat issue and laid bait in the loft. They also identified several points of entry for rodents into the loft space. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2021 and sent photos of the gap between her loft and her neighbour’s. She added that rodents could also access the roof through the extraction vents and said that the guttering should have some form of protection to stop rodents climbing into the roof space. She confirmed that her pest control company would be attending the following Friday to inspect the loft space.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 February 2021, it confirmed its pest control company would be attending all properties in the terrace and completing works to ensure that no further rats could gain access.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 11 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and how this affected her family’s health and their safety. She was unhappy that she was originally told that issues with pests would be her responsibility and said that she could not afford the cost associated with having the local authority’s pest control team attend.
2. She confirmed that her neighbours had also reported that they heard noises from the loft space, but the landlord’s contractor had but found no evidence of pests. However, she continued to hear scratching noises each night and explained that this was affecting her mental health. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s contractor had not checked her neighbours’ lofts and had not placed any bait. She added that on 29 January 2021 she was told by the landlord that she was the only person to have complained about pests and that they were only in her property.
3. She did not feel that the landlord had handled the situation appropriately and felt that it had avoided its responsibility towards her. She did not feel she should be paying for a pest control service when the landlord’s contractors did not do the job properly from the outset.
4. She advised that her child was scared to sleep and she had not slept upstairs for two weeks as the pest noises were affecting her mental health. She added that she had lost a day’s wages due to the stress she was under and wanted the landlord to compensate her for this as well as the inconvenience this had caused her.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It had offered to ask its contractor to reattend the property that day to place poison traps and a camera within the loft space, but the resident had declined this as she did not feel the landlord’s pest contractor was good at their job and did not want them in her house. The landlord confirmed that during a telephone conversation, the resident had stated that the main issue she had was that its staff had not shown any empathy or listened to her concerns.
2. It explained that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint about the information she had received. It confirmed that it would be the tenant’s responsibility to address this issue in accordance with the landlord’s Infestation Policy and her Tenancy Agreement. It had also arranged for a pest contractor to attend the property within two days of the report of an infestation. The inspection concluded that there were no signs of rodents at the property.
3. The landlord confirmed that it would be responsible for pests in communal spaces and that the roof space within connected properties would not be considered communal. Each loft space would be the responsibility of each individual occupier. It confirmed that it had not received any reports of pests from other tenants. It explained that it felt it had exceeded its responsibility by arranging for an inspection of the property at its expense. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 15 February 2021 for the following reasons:
1. She said that the landlord had not fully understood her complaint as it had not acknowledged the impact the situation had on her and her family’s health. She did not feel that the landlord had done everything to try and support her. She explained that she had not said that the landlord failed to accept responsibility, but that the job to inspect her loft had not been completed effectively as she still had a rodent problem following the inspection by the landlord’s contractors on 9 January 2021.
2. She said that the landlord’s report had inconsistencies and that the issue affected other properties and not just hers. She said that the landlord was fully aware of this as it had contracted the resident’s external pest control company to inspect and carry out work to all the properties on her row. She rejected the idea of the landlord’s pest contractor to attend the property as there was no need for this to be a consideration. The issue had been dealt with by her external pest control company by this stage. She disputed that the landlord had correctly followed its complaints policy and infestation procedure.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 19 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It had established that its policies and procedures which covered how it dealt with reports of infestations needed to be revised to make it clear that where infestations are reported in the fabric of the building i.e., loft, walls etc, that it would be the landlord’s responsibility to establish if an infestation has occurred, to bait the affected areas and to remedy any access points into the building.
2. It apologised that the resident had needed to call several times before it agreed to send its pest control company to inspect the loft. It confirmed that although a visual inspection had taken place, the loft was not baited and its contractor had failed to establish if an actual infestation had occurred. It apologised that the resident had then needed to employ her own pest control company; it agreed to pay the cost of this and had instructed the same contractor to inspect and bait all properties in the terrace.
3. The contractor confirmed that it had found evidence of mice in two properties and evidence of mice and rats in the resident’s property. It had identified potential access routes and fitted guards to the drainpipes to prevent further access. It found no other access points or damage to drains and confirmed that the mice and rats were no longer present.
4. It confirmed that it had provided incorrect information about the compensation claim form previously and attached a form for the resident to complete. It confirmed that she had now exhausted its complaints process.
The resident’s pest control company attended the property again on 12 March 2021 to carry out an inspection, this was commissioned by the landlord. Evidence of further rodent activity was found since the initial works were completed on 8 February 2021. The contractor estimated that there was only one or maybe two mice. This was treated and the property was then considered clear of rodents. The operative found no obvious entry points between the neighbouring properties; but said that tiny holes would be sufficient to allow mice to gain entry. They confirmed that a further inspection to the external walls of all properties in the terrace was carried out to check for any external gaps but none were found.
Around this time, the resident completed the compensation claim form. She had asked for £1300 and the landlord offered £500. The details of this offer have not been provided to this Service for review. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 March 2021 and explained that the rodent problem was still ongoing. She asked for clarity about the landlord’s compensation claim process and asked whether the landlord’s offer of £500 was its final offer.
The landlord responded on 22 March 2021 and explained that its offer of £500 compensation remained. It had instructed its pest control company to attend again. It reiterated the findings of the previous report and said that in the exterminator’s professional opinion, the resident’s property was free from vermin. It confirmed that there was nothing further it could do as it had established there was not a defect in the structure of the building. It acknowledged that as the property backed onto fields, there may be occasions where rodents could find a way into the property. As per the tenancy management policy, this would be the responsibility of the tenant to manage.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 23 March 2021 and expressed concern that the landlord had previously accepted responsibility for how the infestation had occurred and to remedy any access points in the property. She said that the property was not clear of rodents as she could still hear them and felt this was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. She asked the landlord to clarify what it meant by saying that the pests would be her responsibility to manage.
The landlord provided a further response to the resident on 24 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that its decision had not changed and the resident’s complaint was upheld. It explained that the actions it had taken following the complaint were in line with its decision. The pest exterminator had confirmed that there were no points of entry and felt that any pests were entering through the eaves of the property.
2. It confirmed that there were no defect issues in the structure of the building that would be increasing the risk of rodents gaining access to the property. It added that it was the opinion of two pest controllers that there was no evidence of an ongoing infestation. It had continued to work with the resident’s chosen pest control company for her peace of mind.
3. It explained that it could not seal every entry point to the property and this would be the same for any property. It noted that the resident lived in a rural area and said that from time to time she would have rodents in her property. The landlord was unable to stop this from happening. It confirmed that moving forward, it would expect the resident to take control on any pest issues as it had found no evidence of defects, entry points or any required repairs.
4. It had originally offered the resident £300 in view of the costs she had incurred and the distress caused. It did not feel the resident’s claim for £1300 was reasonable and had offered a final sum of £500 in line with its compensation policy. It acknowledged that it could have done more when the resident initially reported the issue and it had offered compensation to reflect this. It felt that it had now done everything it could to support the resident with the issue. It confirmed that it had not received any further reports of pests from other tenants to suggest that there was a wider problem in the area.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 26 March 2021 and said that the landlord had told her that its policy would be changed to say that rodents in the lofts were not a tenant’s responsibility. She reiterated that she felt the landlord had gone back on its decision in saying that the rodents were now her responsibility. She was concerned that no traps had been used and she did not feel that a full inspection had been completed as the rodents could hide within the loft insulation. She added that she did not believe that a camera would solve the problem.
The landlord responded on 26 March 2021 and confirmed that its pest control contractor would attend the property on 29 March 2021 to install an infrared camera which would be left for one week. It explained that it was not able to make a final decision on the policy change but explained that it was unlikely that it would take on all responsibility for pest control where there wasn’t anything it could do to resolve the issue. For example, in cases where no repair issues were detected and there were no examples of estate deterioration. Any policy change would need to go through the correct process, which would be a consultation with all tenants. It confirmed that it would contact the pest exterminator for their report following the visit.
The resident sent a further email on 30 March 2021 following the pest exterminator’s visit. She said that they did not seem very engaged with finding a resolution to the issues and she was unsure of what the next steps would be. She asked the landlord to confirm that she would be able to see the camera footage when the camera was removed. The resident called the following day and asked the landlord to cancel the appointment to pick up the camera on 5 April 2021 as this was a bank holiday.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 April 2021 to rearrange the appointment to pick up the camera. The appointment was arranged for 29 April 2021.
Following the contractor’s visit, the resident emailed the landlord on 30 April 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction as they had said that the loft had no rodent activity and she had been shown footage of a different loft. She was concerned that there were no images of the camera being set up in her loft and the contractor had become defensive, asking the resident if she was accusing him of lying. She also explained that a gas contractor had attended and checked the loft on 9 April 2021 but had not seen a camera. She expressed concern that if the camera was motion-sensitive, then it would have activated at this time.
The landlord responded on 30 April 2021 and said that it was waiting for the report following the visit. It explained that it had no reason to doubt the pest exterminator’s professionalism regarding installing the camera. The pest control report was sent on 7 May 2021. The report stated that no pictures had been taken during the two-week period. The pest controller had shown the resident previous footage to demonstrate that the camera only worked when there was motion. The report stated that there had been no signs of vermin in the loft space since the second week of January 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 May 2021 and explained that she was told that the footage was of her loft and questioned this when she saw a light hanging from the ceiling as she did not have a light in her loft. She felt that the camera was either never placed in her loft or never switched on as a gas engineer had gone into her loft during this time and this movement would have been picked up on the camera footage. She also disagreed with the opinion that there had been no activity in the loft since January 2021. The landlord emailed this Service on the same day and explained its position. At this stage it offered an additional £50 compensation for the delay in picking up the camera from the resident’s loft, bringing the total to £550. This offer was rejected by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the pest issue and the resident’s family’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and her family experienced because of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the issue was affecting her family’s health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord would be responsible for keeping the structure of the resident’s property in good repair, this would include the roof and any guttering. The tenancy management policy states that tenants have a responsibility to report all issues regarding vermin, pests or insect infestation to the landlord. When a tenant reports the presence of vermin, pests or insects within their house or garden, they will be advised to contact the local authority or a pest control company. If an infestation occurs at a location that is identified as a common area and not part of a tenant’s homes, the landlord should take steps to eradicate the infestation and prevent it from recurring. The response time for responding to infestations will depend on the type of infestations and the severity, however, the landlord would respond to all reports within ten working days.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that, in general, residents are responsible for pest control within their own properties unless the pests are found to be entering through defects in the structure of the building (holes in the wall etc) In that case, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to arrange pest control. If there are pests reported in multiple properties or communal areas then the landlord would be responsible for pest control for the building or area.
In this case, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in view of its service failures. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the reports of pests in the loft to check whether the pests were entering through defects in the structure of the building. It is not disputed that the landlord’s pest control company failed to establish if an actual infestation had occurred when it investigated initially. Whilst a visual inspection took place on 9 January 2021, the contractor had not baited the loft or identified any potential points of entry for rodents. This led to the resident needing to employ her own pest control company who identified several defects in the loft space which could allow access for rodents. This was likely to have been frustrating for the resident. Following this, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the need to employ her own pest control company to resolve this matter and agreed to reimburse the cost of this. It also hired the pest control company the resident had used to carry out any further inspections and work to remedy the access points.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident was originally told incorrectly that the pests would be her responsibility to manage. It took points of learning from the resident’s complaint and established that its policies and procedures which covered how it dealt with reports of infestations needed to be revised to make it clear that where infestations are reported in the fabric of the building i.e., loft, walls etc, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to remedy any access points into the building and establish if an infestation has occurred. This is appropriate as any repairs needed to the structure of the building would be the landlord’s responsibility to carry out.
When deciding on how best to proceed with an issue, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the pest control company originally employed by the resident reported that following the work in February 2021, minimal amounts of bait had been taken and they felt that the property was now free from vermin. They had also confirmed that there were no points of entry in need of repair and no signs of an infestation.
It is noted that the resident lives in a rural area, where it is more common to have the occasional rodent. It is correct to say that if there was evidence of one or two mice then the loft could not be considered pest-free, however this may also be the case if no bait was taken. The resident still believes there to be a pest issue within her loft. However, the landlord would not be expected to do anything further as there were no further signs of defects in the loft space which would increase the risk of rodents entering the property. It had also not received any reports of rodents from any of the resident’s neighbours and the matter would no longer be considered a communal issue affecting multiple properties. In line with the landlord’s policies, if the resident experiences further incidents of pests, this would be her responsibility to resolve, unless there are multiple properties involved.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In summary, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of its handling of her reports of a rodent infestation. The landlord offered a total of £550 compensation recognition of the costs she incurred by hiring her own pest control company as well as delays and errors in its handling of the matter, The Ombudsman considers this amount to be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. It is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website.). In line with the remedies guidance, remedies in this range are appropriate in cases where there has been considerable service failure by the landlord. Therefore the compensation of £550 reflects the affect of the landlord’s errors on the resident and the distress caused by this as well as the cost of arranging her own pest control visit.

The resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s pest control company and the camera placed in her loft.

It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a camera to be fitted in the resident’s loft given her reports of continued scratching sounds following her complaint. The landlord was not strictly obliged to arrange this as it had received two separate reports that the issue with rodents in the resident’s loft had been resolved. It was, however, reasonable for it to do so given that it had taken responsibility for resolving the pest issue on this occasion.
There remains a dispute over whether the camera was fitted correctly by the landlord’s pest control contractor. The landlord has explained that the camera only takes pictures/records when there is movement in the loft, and the contractor concluded that because no pictures had been taken, there was no evidence of rodents. The resident has advised that if this were the case, the camera should have picked up footage of a gas engineer working in the loft during the period in which the camera was placed. There was also a slight delay in picking up the camera from the resident’s property, which the landlord has acknowledged and paid appropriate compensation for.
It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether the camera was placed correctly as the landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it was. It appears that the evidence shown to the resident did not account for the resident’s claim that a gas engineer attended the property and should have activated the camera if it was set up effectively. This is likely to have caused the resident some frustration and uncertainty as it remains an unanswered question. This does not amount to a service failure by the landlord, as ultimately it was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors. However, in view of the lack of evidence to show that the camera was correctly installed, it would be reasonable for the landlord offers to place another camera in the resident’s loft and show her how it works to prevent any uncertainty.
We also cannot determine what happened on the day the camera was collected as there were no independent witnesses to this event. It is understandable that the resident may have doubts about the quality of any further work carried out by the landlord’s pest control company, as the staff member involved had not identified the points of entry or rodents in her loft on their first inspection on 9 January 2021, despite this issue being confirmed by her own pest control company in the same month. Given that the relationship between the resident and this contractor had broken down somewhat, it would have been helpful for the landlord to arrange for an independent pest control company or a different contractor to complete any further inspections for the resident’s peace of mind. The landlord is entitled to use the contractor of its choice; however, it would have been reasonable for it to consider other options where possible in this case given the circumstances.
In summary, there has been no maladministration regarding this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has acted above its obligations by continuing to investigate the resident’s reports of rodents in her loft and would be entitled to rely on the findings of its qualified staff. It is, however, recommended that the landlord offers to place another camera in the resident’s loft and show her how it works to prevent any uncertainty. It is also recommended that the landlord considers using an alternative pest control company or contractor if possible, if future inspections of the resident’s property are needed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s pest control company and the camera placed in her loft.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged its service failures and offered suitable compensation to the resident in view of the additional costs she had incurred by hiring her own pest control company and the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer of £550 compensation is proportionate to the level of service failure by the landlord and resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord acted above its obligations by arranging for a camera to be fitted in the resident’s loft as it had already determined that there was no infestation. In view of the lack of evidence to show that the camera was successfully installed, it is recommended that another camera is placed to prevent any uncertainty. It is noted that the resident has some uncertainty about the professionalism of the landlord’s chosen pest company, as such it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider using an alternative pest control company or contractor for future visits to the resident’s property, if possible.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £550 as previously agreed if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress has been found on this basis.
It is recommended that the landlord offers to place another camera in the resident’s loft and show her how it works to prevent any uncertainty.
It is also recommended that the landlord considers using an alternative pest control company or contractor if possible, in the event that future inspections of the resident’s property are needed.