Plus Dane Housing Group Limited (202006214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006214

Plus Dane Housing Group Limited

18 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s pest control reports at her previous address;
2. the resident’s request for a bath to be installed at her previous address;
3. the resident’s request to be re-housed;
4. the resident’s reports of repairs needed at her current address.

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 will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’.
The resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her request to have a bath installed at her previous address has not been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process. The focus of the complaints and complaint escalations made by the resident’s representative on 22 October 2019, 14 November 2019 and 13 December 2019 was the handling of a pest control issue and re-housing request; the bath installation request was not part of the landlord’s complaint process and is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Further, the resident’s reports of repairs needed at her current address were raised on 3 June 2020. This was after the complaint about her re-housing request had already exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 29 May 2020. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the handling of the repairs needed at the resident’s new address has not been considered separately through the landlord’s complaints process. This matter is therefore also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
The Ombudsman has considered the other aspects of the resident’s complaints, namely the pest control issues at her previous address and her re-housing request.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant and this complaint relates to her tenancies at a previous address and her current address. The previous address was a three-bedroom bungalow and the tenancy began on 1 May 2017. The current address is a three-bedroom house and the tenancy began on 11 May 2020.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has long-term health conditions, mobility difficulties and mental health problems.
The tenancy agreement for the resident’s previous address outlined that the landlord was obliged to ‘keep in good repair and proper working order… the structure and exterior of the property’.

The resident was obliged to ‘keep the inside and outside of your home… in a reasonable condition’.

The tenancy agreement for the resident’s current address outlines that the landlord is obliged to ‘keep in repair the structure and exterior’, including gutters and external doors and to ‘keep in repair and working order’ heating installations, electrical wiring and sockets. It states that the landlord is not responsible for repair or maintenance of any free-standing structures, including sheds.
The landlord has a repairs policy that sets out categories of emergency repairs (to be made safe within four hours and completed within 24 hours) and repairs by appointment (to be completed within 28 calendar days). The latter category includes roof leaks and gutter leaks.

It adds that:

‘Major adaptations require a formal written assessment from an Occupational Therapist (OT) who must confirm the property allocated is suitable for their needs. The Local authority assess an individual’s ability to access grant funding and we prioritise the works based upon date order unless there are other factors to escalate them, for example, being unable to leave hospital unless adaptations are completed.’

The landlord has a lettings policy that allows for management moves ‘in exceptional circumstances where the health and safety of our tenant could be at serious risk if they remain in their own home’.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out at initial quick resolution step followed by a two stage complaints process with formal responses required:
1. at stage one – within 10 working days of the acknowledgement
2. at stage two – within 20 working days of the complaint escalation
The landlord has a compensation framework that allows for compensation to be awarded where ‘exceptional inconvenience or distress has been caused’.

Summary of Events

Previous address

A representative of the resident wrote to the landlord on 8 August 2019 to report a silverfish infestation in the bathroom (which it said had already been reported) and a rat infestation. It added that the latter was linked to adjoining properties that were not owned by the landlord and that the issue had been reported to the local authority. Lastly, it enquired if the wet room in the property could be removed and a bath installed to assist the resident with her health conditions.
The landlord’s internal records show a note was made on 9 August 2019 that it would handle the correspondence as a service request because it had not been reported before.
The resident’s representative chased the request on 19 August 2019. A property inspection was organised for 22 August 2019 with the following handwritten notes made:
1. no silverfish were witnessed
2. the wet room was in good condition
3. the resident reported that she had been able to hear rodents in the loft
4. the local authority environmental health team had already attended in response to the rodent pest control report and conducted a treatment to the rear garden and the resident said she would allow them into the loft space at the next visit
5. the landlord asked the resident to let them know when environmental health was next due to attend so it could visit at the same time
6. it was agreed that a hole to the drain inspection chamber would be filled and another drain section cleared out.
The landlord’s notes recorded a joint visit with environmental health on 28 August 2019 and noted the bait in the garden had not been touched and that new bait had been laid in the loft area.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it conducted drainage works on 30 August 2019, including to an inlet gully with a section of cement renewed.
The landlord’s notes show that it attended on 19 September 2019 but was informed by the resident that environmental health had attended earlier in the week and told her that bait had been taken. The landlord recorded attempts to contact environmental health on 20 and 30 September 2019 – on the latter attempt, according to the landlord’s notes made at the time, it was informed by the local authority that the case had been closed due to no bait being taken two weeks previously but the landlord agreed to conduct a CCTV survey and fill any holes.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 30 September 2019 to report that she was able to hear rats in her property. The representative wrote to the landlord on the same day and advised that they understood the landlord had not acted on recommendations made by the environmental health team. It added that it was awaiting information from the local authority occupational therapy team.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a repairs order on 7 October 2019 to use CCTV on some drains (it advised the representative of this on 16 October 2019) and that this was completed on 25 October 2019.
The landlord wrote to the representative on 17 October 2019. It advised that:
1. treatment of rats was local authority responsibility but the landlord had liaised with them and began joint visits on 29 August 2019, adding that no potential access points were located at that time
2. the local authority had closed the case in late September 2019 due to baits not being touched
3. appointments had been made to conduct a CCTV survey and fill any holes.
The landlord’s handwritten notes show that it attended the property on 21, 22 and 25 October 2019 with pest control operatives from the local authority. It added that it was aware environmental health operatives had also attended and set bait on 24 October 2019 despite the previous bait not having been touched.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 22 October 2019. It noted it had attempted contact with the landlord on numerous occasions over the previous two months but that the rat infestation was still a problem. It added that the local authority had attended on 17 October 2019, confirmed the rat infestation and concluded that the property was unsuitable – a request was made for a management move. It followed this on 28 October 2019 with a report that dead rats within the walls of the property had caused a disgusting smell.
The landlord replied to the representative on 28 October 2019. It advised that it had:
1. carried out a CCTV drain survey and blocked possible entry points with wire wool
2. provided the resident with an ultrasonic rodent repellent
3. appointed a specialist pest control contractor to attend on 29 October 2019.
The landlord’s internal records show the inspection of the loft and outside spaces went ahead on 29-30 October 2019. It noted that:
1. there was evidence of rodent activity in the loft and a hole in the loft had been found
2. a faint smell was noted in the daughter’s bedroom
3. tracing powder had been laid down and a follow up visit would be done with environmental health that may lead to expandable foam being used
4. neighbours on both sides were homeowners and had experienced activity so the loft space may need to be cleared out
5. the resident reported the health impact of this situation on her and her children and it was agreed she would think about what she wanted and the housing officer would follow up with her.
The landlord’s surveyor wrote to the resident’s representative on 31 October 2019. It said that it was a complaint response and it advised that:
1. potential further proofing works had been identified during an inspection on 29 October 2019 although bait recently left by the local authority had not been touched
2. the housing officer had visited the resident to offer support and would assist with her re-housing request.
The landlord noted that it held further discussions with the resident on 1, 6 and 12 November 2019. It agreed with the resident on 13 November 2019 that the loft would be cleared pending a potential property move (that it advised was unlikely before Christmas) – it told her that this should take a day.
The representative submitted a complaint to the landlord on 14 November 2019 on the grounds that:
1. the property was still affected with rats months after the initial reports
2. no support measures had been put in place for the resident
3. the landlord had not taken the resident’s health circumstances into account when it told her to go out for the day during the loft clearance.
A contractor provided a quote to the landlord on 15 November 2019 for the removal and replacement of loft insulation. The quote stated that works would take one day to complete.
A management move was signed off by the landlord on 27 November 2019 – it advised that this was because the resident felt she could not settle in the property due to the rat problems she had experienced. The landlord noted on the same day that a potential property had been located and the resident would be considering the location. It visited the resident that day and found that loft clearance works had begun the day before and noted reassurance was offered that it supported a move.
The landlord issued a formal stage one complaint response to the resident’s representative on 4 December 2019. It concluded that:
1. it’s pest control responsibility as landlord was only to conduct proofing works but it had been much more involved in this case due to the resident’s concerns; it noted that it had worked with the local authority but the ‘bait and wait’ approach to pest control can take time
2. it had completed an environmental clean, removal of contaminated insulation and blockage of possible entry points between 26 November and 3 December 2019
3. it had supported the resident and agreed a management move for her although environmental health had not initially recommended a move because the rat issue was in the loft
4. it had constantly communicated with the resident to keep her updated, mentioning meetings with her on 30 and 31 October 2019.
The landlord noted on 13 December 2019 that it had located another potential property for the resident that could be more convenient in terms of its proximity to the school attended by the resident’s children and that it had discussed this with the resident on the same day albeit conversation was difficult as the resident was recovering from a medical procedure.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 13 December 2019 to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. all rat access points had not been blocked as promised and it had taken six days to clear and replace insulation instead of the promised one day which had caused inflated heating costs of £60
2. dead rats had caused problems at the property
3. the management move had not materialised
4. an engineer had broken the heating system during an attempted repair and the resident had not been left with sufficient temporary heaters.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident’s representative on 3 February 2020. It apologised for the delay and said it had unsuccessfully attempted to speak to the resident. It concluded that:
1. it had worked with the local authority pest control team to remove the rat infestation and had blocked access points in the loft
2. it had attended the property on six occasions to address the rat reports, on two occasions no bait had been taken and the resident had asked it not to proceed with further proofing works as she was looking to vacate the property
3. it had removed contaminated insulation to the loft albeit this had taken longer than they would have liked because more layers were found than initially thought – it apologised for this; it added it had not moved the resident into a hotel because it was thought the works would be short-term but it had paid the resident £40 to cover additional heating costs
4. its records showed the surveyor involved had liaised with the resident, the representative and the local authority, supporting a move once this request was made
5. it had assisted the resident since mid-October 2019 in a bid to find suitable alternative accommodation due to her specific health needs and the length of time it can take the local authority to manage pest issues; it noted it had offered two properties to her, one of which she had provisionally accepted subject to completion of some repairs
6. other points were addressed such as leak damage to a ceiling, the confidentiality of the property re-let process, central heating repairs and renewal of doors and windows.

It did not include escalation rights to the Ombudsman within this response for which it later apologised.

The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 11 February 2020. It advised that environmental health had told the resident that day that they believed rats were in the wall cavities. It added that the landlord’s proofing work had not been comprehensive and that there was a hole in the living room so it asked the landlord to reconsider its position.
The landlord responded to the resident’s representative on 18 February 2020. It advised that it had liaised with the environmental health team too and been told that there was no evidence of rats witnessed during their previous visit, no bait had been touched and no further treatment had been undertaken. It added that it had only blocked the hole in the living room ceiling temporarily as the resident was due to move which it was still supporting her with. It advised the resident could escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord noted on 19 February 2020 that it had visited a potential new property the day before with the resident – this property had apparently become available for re-letting the previous week. It recorded that the resident had preferred this property, particularly as it would be ready in half the time of the other potential move.

New address

A property handover sheet was completed by the landlord for the new address (that she had viewed on 18 February 2020) which the resident signed up to on 13 March 2020. An attached sign-up checklist showed that an electrical certificate had been provided.
There were internal landlord discussions during 19-20 March 2020 that show it had spoken to the resident to try to reach a resolution to the problem of her being needed to provide keys to allow for a gas ‘turn on and test’ while also being aware that her daughter was unwell and the gas operative needed to have minimal contact with the resident (for Covid social distancing reasons).
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 1 April 2020. It raised concerns that:
1. the resident was still in a rat-infested property
2. the resident had been offered a new address and was told on 13 March 2020 that she could sign the new tenancy agreement
3. the landlord had asked the resident to attend her new property (with her unwell daughter who was supposed to be isolating) for a gas check to be conducted which led the resident to be told that the boiler required parts and could break down
4. the landlord had ceased the tenancy sign up process on 22 March 2020, changed the locks to the new property and left belongings in the property that the resident could no longer access
5. the resident had incurred expenses on paying utilities and for carpets at the new property
6. the landlord’s actions were illegal and they should immediately allow access to the resident for her to get her possessions.
The representative advised the landlord on 7 April 2020 that the resident had medication and her son’s laptop inside the new property and was unable to access them.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 16 April 2020. It concluded that:
1. the tenancy start date had been 16 March 2020 but the landlord became aware on 19 March 2020 that the resident was planning to move on 21 March 2020
2. the gas safety team had no record of cancelling an appointment and had attended the property as planned but found there was no access
3. a new appointment went ahead on 20 March 2020 with discussions leading to the resident and her daughter waiting in the car having provided the keys to the engineer
4. the gas had been turned on and tested on 20 March 2020 and, although parts were needed, the boiler was working – the engineer was unable to show the resident how to use the programmer due to the need for social distancing but did demonstrate how the thermostat could be used to manage the boiler
5. the resident had advised it on 23 March 2020 that her removal company had cancelled the move – further discussions led to the resident advising the landlord that her GP had told her to self-isolate so the move was suspended
6. arrangements were made so that the resident would not be billed for rent or fuel charges and there was no mention that any valuable items had been left by the resident in the property nor that any loan or carpet charges had been incurred
7. it had attempted to speak to the resident on three occasions to arrange for her to collect any essential belongings from the new address but there had been no response and it was holding the property for her so a new tenancy start date could be agreed once the lockdown restrictions allowed.
The representative made a complaint escalation request on 20 April 2020 on the grounds that the stage one complaint response contained inaccuracies as:
1. the resident had been advised by a gas engineer on 18 March 2020 that he would not be able to attend the appointment due to safety (presumably Covid-related) concerns and that there was confusion on 19 March 2020 too
2. when the gas was turned on, she was told by the engineer to maintain the temperature at 30 degrees to prevent the boiler switching off
3. the resident was not advised that the tenancy start had been cancelled until 25 March 2020 when she was informed the locks were being changed
4. it was not until later that the resident realised that items like her medication and a laptop were locked in the new property and the resident had started paying for broadband at the new address.
The representative reiterated the nature of the complaint on 28 April 2020 and suggested that the landlord should fix the boiler in the new property so the move could proceed and award compensation to the resident. It was noted that there was a discrepancy in the efforts the landlord was taking to undertake gas safety checks in occupied properties while apparently not being able to do the same in an empty property.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 4 May 2020 to summarise what had been agreed in a telephone conversation, namely that:
1. the landlord would arrange the boiler repair for that day (and on 5 May 2020 if required)
2. the resident had arranged her carpet fitting for 6 May 2020
3. the resident would move her belongings in between 7-10 May 2020
4. the new tenancy would begin on 11 May 2020.
The landlord wrote to the representative on 4 May 2020 to advise another faulty part had been found on the boiler so the engineer would need to attend the following day. The representative replied to confirm the resident had reported that there had been a leak on the boiler.
There are records of email exchanges between 15-21 May 2020 where the landlord took steps to assist the resident with the move of her belongings.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident’s representative on 29 May 2020. It concluded that:
1. it had obtained keys from the previous tenant of the resident’s new address on 13 March 2020
2. the resident had signed the new tenancy agreement on 16 March 2020 with a view to her moving in on 21 March 2020; it had intended to turn on the gas supply on 18 March 2020 but this had been suspended due to the pandemic lockdown and contradictory advice was given because the landlord was adapting to new measures caused by Covid-19
3. gas testing was rescheduled to 20 March 2020 and, although parts were needed, the engineer had shown the resident how to use the boiler until it could conduct non-essential works
4. the resident had told the landlord on 23 March 2020 that the removal company had cancelled the move on 21 March 2020 and her doctor had recommended she self-isolate
5. the decision was made to cancel the tenancy until the resident was able to move which it said was an effort to avoid the resident incurring rent and utility costs for two properties simultaneously
6. it changed the locks to the new address but noted it had discussed this with the resident who advised that the possessions that had been moved in to date were not needed urgently
7. it had attempted to contact the resident on 7 April 2020, 9 April 2020 and 1 May 2020 to see if her self-isolation had ceased but there was no response; it spoke to her on 4 May 2020 and advised that boiler parts were being fitted and it would amend the tenancy start date to 4 May 2020 (it later changed this to 11 May 2020)
8. it apologised for any distress caused to the resident and advised that it had assisted her in moving heavy furniture and would pay her £250 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2020. It advised the resident would accept the £250 compensation offer for the failure of the proposed move but advised that:
1. the resident found a range of repairs were needed to her new property, including broken plug sockets, a broken rear door opening regulator, a living room radiator leak, overflowing guttering, the lack of a shed and an inaccessible loft
2. these should have been completed when the property was empty
3. there was still a rat infestation at the resident’s previous address at the point she vacated the property in May 2020
4. the landlord had gone through the motions and left the resident feeling alone and helpless.
The landlord responded to the resident’s representative on 24 June 2020. It advised it had already issued a final complaint response regarding the previous address on 3 February 2020 and issued a final complaint response regarding the move to the new address on 29 May 2020. It added that the £250 compensation would be offset against the resident’s rent account for her previous address and that a further response would follow about the repairs at the new address.
The landlord’s internal records show it reviewed the representative’s list of repairs on 24 June 2020 and concluded that none of them had been established through the voids process.
The landlord responded to the resident’s representative on 26 June 2020 about the repairs at the new address. It advised that:
1. front door lock – this had been reported on 21 May 2020 and completed on 22 May 2020
2. plug sockets – an electrical safety check had been carried out on 25 February 2020 with no faults detected; it had attended on 26 June 2020 and replaced a double socket in the hall
3. broken rear door regulator – it was not aware of this until the representative’s letter so a repair order had been raised
4. living room radiator – a leak on the radiator had not been reported until the representative’s letter so a repair order had been raised
5. overflowing gutter – a repair order had been raised
6. loft hatch – the operative attending for the back door regulator would check this
7. shed – this had been removed due to it being in a poor condition and had not been used for some time and the resident would need to request permission if she wished to install a shed
8. it was satisfied that the property had been handed over to the resident on 11 May 2020 with only minimal repairs needed.
The resident’s representative told this Service in September 2020 that the broken rear door regulator and overflowing guttering were still outstanding repairs issues at the new address.

Assessment and findings

It must be acknowledged that the circumstances of this case have caused great worry and distress to the resident. The resident’s representative has explained on several occasions the impact that the rat infestation, in particular, had on the resident, her family and her ability to settle into her previous home.
In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Pest control reports

The landlord was made aware of pest control concerns at the property from 8 August 2019. Evidence seen by this Service does not show that the landlord was responsible for pest control treatments but it is not disputed that it was obliged to conduct any proofing works that could help prevent pests accessing the property.
Within a month of the original report, the landlord had:
1. attended the property on at least three occasions, one of which was a joint visit with the local authority environmental health team
2. noted that no silverfish had been witnessed, after which this was not reported again
3. carried out some related drainage works
4. liaised with the environmental health team to get updates from them on bait they had already set outside and worked with them for bait to be set in the loft area, agreeing on a follow-up visit the following month.

These were all reasonable actions that demonstrated that the landlord was appropriately involved in a multi-agency approach to remedy the rat problem. There is no evidence that any proofing works were recommended to the landlord by environmental health during this period.

During September 2019, the landlord noted that it was advised by the environmental health team that it had closed its pest control case because there was no evidence that rats had touched the bait. Nevertheless, the landlord raised further drainage works following discussion with the environmental health team. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of appropriately qualified professionals and its decision to raise works in early October 2019, despite the local authority advising it had closed its pest control case, demonstrated it was resolution-focused and willing to conduct proofing works when recommended.
Within a month of the discussion with the environmental health team in late September 2019, the landlord had:
1. attended the property on four more occasions
2. conducted a CCTV drainage survey and filled some potential access points
3. appointed its own specialist contractor to quote for works in the loft.

These measures were reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord remained involved in attempting to resolve the rat problem. Again, this Service has not seen any evidence that any proofing works were recommended to the landlord by the local authority during this period.

The landlord noted that it was presented with evidence of rodent activity by the environmental health team for the first time in late October 2019. It took the following actions within a month:
1. obtained a quote for replacement of loft insulation and advised the resident, based on this quote, that works were likely to take one day
2. arranged for its housing officer to make regular contact with the resident
3. commenced the loft insulation and further proofing works.

These were again reasonable actions to take, particularly given the environmental health team had apparently advised on 29 October 2019 that bait had not been touched. The loft insulation work did take several days longer than the resident was originally advised but, in mitigation, the landlord based the projected timescale on the contractor’s information and subsequently made a goodwill payment of £40 towards the resident’s heating costs.

Any further rat reports were sporadic between December 2019 and May 2020 (when the resident vacated the property). Based on evidence seen by this Service, the environmental health team did not provide the landlord with any evidence or written recommendations during this time that further proofing work was needed and the focus appears to have switched to securing a property move for the resident (with the landlord noting that the resident had requested some proofing work stop pending her move).
In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation. It was reasonable in its reliance on information provided to it by the local authority who were responsible for the pest control treatment and, although no evidence has been seen by this Service to show that the local authority recommended proofing works beyond the CCTV survey, the landlord:
1. attended the property regularly throughout September-November 2019, engaging with the resident and her representative
2. completed works in August 2019, October 2019 and November 2019 within its repair policy timescales, appointing its own specialist contractor in the process
3. acted beyond its obligations in providing the resident with a rodent repellent
4. involved its housing officer to offer support to the resident, responding to her choices on the property move (as set out below).

Request to move

The resident’s representative made the landlord aware of the resident’s preference for a property move on 22 October 2019. The landlord replied on 31 October 2019 to advise its housing officer would assist the resident with re-housing and a formal sign-off of the management move was completed on 27 November 2019 when a potential property was also offered to the resident. The timescale in which the landlord authorised the management move was reasonable and its decision to allow a management move was pro-active, particularly given the environmental health team had not advised the landlord that a move was necessary.
The landlord discussed a second potential property with the resident on 13 December 2019. It did so as it had discussed the resident’s needs and found a property that was nearer the school of the resident’s children than the first property it offered. The discussion around a second property demonstrated that the landlord sought to offer the resident choice and was reasonable in considering her circumstances during the management move process.
There is no set timescale within the landlord’s lettings policy as to when a resident should expect to be moved once a management move has been authorised. Further, the timescale was dependent on the availability of ‘like of like’ properties as the lettings policy obliges the landlord to provide a property of the same type and sets out that the majority of its properties are passed for choice based letting or direct lets rather than management moves. Nevertheless, within two months of the resident’s request for a move, the landlord had presented her with two potential properties to move to – this demonstrated that the landlord’s approach was reasonable and pro-active.
The landlord noted that it viewed a third potential property with the resident on 18 February 2020 and that the resident favoured this option given the timescale in which a tenancy could commence. This again demonstrated that the landlord was considerate of the resident’s needs and its approach to offer choice was resolution-focused.
Unfortunately, the resident’s tenancy at her preferred property was due to begin on 16 March 2020 but this was subsequently pushed back to 11 May 2020. This would represent an unreasonable delay in normal circumstances. The resident’s representative advised during this time that the resident had been left in a property with a rat infestation and there will have been inevitable frustration that delays in the property move occurred at the point the resident expected to be able to leave a property that she advised she had lost faith in.
However, the original tenancy start date (16 March 2020) was the same day that the government’s self-isolation and shielding guidance was announced and lockdown was accompanied by rapid law changes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. It is not something that had been encountered by those involved in this complaint before and, as a result, it is important that this complaint is not looked at with the benefit of hindsight and is put into context. The following relevant changes to government advice and regulations occurred during this period:
1. lockdown regulations were introduced by the government on 26 March 2020 and these included restrictions on viewing properties and moving home
2. guidance was issued for landlords on 28 March 2020 that property moves should be delayed as far as possible
3. ‘working safely in other people’s homes’ guidance was only issued on 11 May 2020
4. viewings and moving home amendments to the coronavirus regulations were only published on 13 May 2020.

These factors will inevitably have contributed to delays in the landlord’s ability to assist with the resident’s move.

This Service has not seen evidence relating to some of the areas of concern raised by the resident’s representative such as a copy of the boiler report, landlord records of its decision to change the locks to the property and notes of any discussions it had with the resident about belongings that were locked inside the new address. Nevertheless, based on evidence available, there was service failure on the part of the landlord because:
1. there was confusion in arrangements being made (given social distancing concerns and the resident’s child being unwell) during 19-20 March 2020 for the gas ‘turn on and test’
2. the boiler was not fully operational after contractors attended on 20 March 2020
3. it has not offered explanation as to why it did not attend to the boiler while the property was empty during April 2020.
The landlord acknowledged through the complaints process that this matter will have caused anxiety and frustration to the resident – it apologised for this and awarded £250 compensation. It also changed the tenancy start date to avoid the resident paying rent and assisted in the eventual move of items to the resident’s new address during May 2020. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends compensation within this range in instances of severe service failure that have had no permanent impact on a resident. Given the external factors that contributed to the delay between March-May 2020 and the other steps taken by the landlord to assist with the move, this was a proportionate level of compensation.
In summary, the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale to the resident’s request to move. It considered the resident’s circumstances appropriately and discussed two potential property moves with her before she chose the property she eventually moved to. There was a delay of around two months in the resident being able to move into that property, which the landlord was partially responsible for, and the compensation award was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s pest control reports at her previous address.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in response to the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s pest control reports at her previous address. It completed proofing works within a reasonable timescale when required and maintained regular contact with the resident during the pest treatment period.
The landlord’s decision to assist the resident with a management move was appropriate and it made re-housing offers within a reasonable timescale. There was a delay in the resident being able to move into a new property following the tenancy sign-up and the landlord’s compensation award for this was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to check if any of the repairs reported to it on 3 June 2020 remain outstanding; if so, it should address these urgently and update the resident and her representative until the repairs are completed.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.