St Albans City and District Council (202012034)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012034

St Albans City and District Council

15 June 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 is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when the tenancy began.
2. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and outstanding repairs from 2020 onwards.
3. Pest infestations at the property.
4. The resident’s request to be transferred to a two-bedroom property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated how the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the condition of the property when the tenancy began falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states – “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.” While the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let in 2018 are noted, the Ombudsman cannot investigate whether the property met the landlord’s void standard owing to the time that has lapsed. However, this Service has investigated how the landlord investigated and responded to the concerns about the property – and outstanding repairs – when the resident made her formal complaint in February 2020.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom, first floor maisonette and is occupied by the resident and her young daughter. The tenancy began in February 2018.

The tenancy agreement

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) implies certain terms into tenancy agreements and short term leases. Section 11 of the Act sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities as follows:

“In a lease to which this section applies there is implied a covenant by the lessor –

To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes),
To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house of the supply of water, gas and electricity, and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity), and
To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.”

The Tenants Handbook (the handbook) sets out further detail about how the landlord will approach and complete repairs. The landlord has two priority levels – emergency repairs and at resident’s convenience. The handbook provides that emergency repairs will be attended and made safe within two hours – and rectified within 24 hours. Examples of emergency repairs are severe leaks, fire, full water failure, no central heating between 31 October to 1 May.
Where repairs are not deemed to constitute an emergency, they will be booked for completion at the resident’s convenience. Such repairs will normally be completed within 28 days, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The handbook adds that if a resident is not offered an appointment at the point of calling, they should be called to book an appointment within 24 hours of their request.
In relation to pests, the handbook states –

“Pests found within the home, such as mice, cockroaches, ants, feather mites or fleas are your responsibility. However, we will deal with an infestation of rats or squirrels to your home and wasps’ nests within communal areas to blocks of flats”.

The handbook also contains detailing relating to housing transfers. It states that if a resident wishes to apply, they need to complete a transfer application form. However, they may only join the transfer list if they have a housing need – or wish to move to a smaller property. Once an application is received, the landlord will assess the information to determine whether the resident is adequately house. However, applicants must complete the transfer form and ensure that the details are kept up to date.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2020 and said that she wished to make a formal complaint about the treatment she had received since the tenancy began. In her correspondence, the resident described the circumstances and events she experienced from 2013. She said that she was eventually offered the property; and while it was “unfit for human habitation”, she had no choice but to accept. She said:
1. The property had severe damp and mould on the walls.
2. The bathroom tiles were cracked and unhygienic – one had fallen off whilst her daughter was in the bath. The wooden floor was rough with splinters and exposed nails.
3. Profanities had been plastered over the walls and the kitchen was falling apart with evidence of a rodent infestation in every cupboard.
4. The front door does not lock properly, and she had previously been advised that it would be replaced.
5. There were unsafe electrical sockets and loose pipework that needed to be repaired.
6. The rodent infestation was ongoing, but the landlord was not interested. She had complained about it four times, but nothing had been done.
7. The condition of the property was of concern – and she was worried about the impact it was having on her daughter’s health. Her own mental health had suffered as it was becoming increasingly difficult living in a “bad environment”.
8. She was under the impression that her tenancy at the property would only be temporary given that her daughter was about to turn two at the time. However, despite this, she had heard nothing.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident that her concerns would be considered in full. The landlord also contacted the resident on 12 February so that an appointment could be arranged to inspect the property and view the areas of concern that the resident had reported.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord raised a series of jobs to take place at the property later that month. These included – instructing a pest control expert, removing the kitchen units so that they could be checked and cleaned in anticipation of pest control works, fixing the bathroom extractor fan, checking the seals around the windows and doors, and fixing an electrical socket.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 4 March. In this, it said:

Condition of the property

It had reviewed the photographs that were taken when the property was empty – and being prepared to be let – and while it did pass as “ready to let”, it was “clearly not an attractive prospect”.
At the time, it was offering paint packs for decoration; however, it acknowledged that the property would have “required quite a lot of work” to bring it from ready to let, to a “good overall condition”.
The photographs showed the tiles to “appear quite secure”, and did not show evidence of a rodent infestation.
It understood that soon after the resident moved, there were problems with the front door – and an order was raised to replace the frame in January 2019. However, this did not go ahead as the resident was unwell on the day that the works were scheduled. The landlord said that it then changed contractors; and the works to the front door was not include on the list that was sent to the new contractor. However, it understood that the door had since been replaced.
One of the housing surveyors had visited the property at the end of 2019, and raised a number of repairs with the new contractor. The landlord had seen the original email – and that the surveyor had tried to chase the work – however, it was noted that he had made little progress. The matter was then referred to one of the landlord’s contract managers who was able to arrange a date for the works to be carried out and for pest control to visit the property.
The resident had been visited by a member of staff the previous week and further repairs had been referred to the contractor. The landlord added that if the works were not completed by 27 March, then she should notify it accordingly so they could be chased up.
The contractor had been behind since taking up the contract in April 2019 as a result of heavy demand on the service. This was less than satisfactory, and it had stepped up its monitoring of the work that had been referred to it.

Housing application

The resident had been housed in a one-bedroom property with her daughter as this was in accordance with its Housing Allocations Policy at the time. Under the policy, a parent with a child under two years could be allocated either a one or two-bedroom property.
Residents allocated a one-bedroom property would become eligible to join the transfer list for a two-bedroom property once the child was two years old. The landlord added that this policy had been adopted because of the ongoing severe shortage of two-bedroom properties.
It understood that the resident had made two applications to join the transfer list and these were both closed as she had not supplied supporting information when requested.
The resident was still eligible to join the transfer list, and the application would be dated from the date that all the supporting information was received.
Like all new tenants, the resident was given a one-year introductory tenancy, followed by a 5-year fixed tenancy. When the resident signed up for the new tenancy, she should have been advised that it would convert automatically to a 5-year term unless there was any substantial breach – for example, rent arrears or anti-social behaviour.
It was not necessary for any “formal action” to be taken on the one-year anniversary; however, it was sorry if this information was not clearly explained.

The landlord concluded by acknowledging that it had failed to provide the resident with a “satisfactory housing management or repairs service”. The resident could apply for a transfer to a two-bedroom property; however, there could still be a “considerable wait” until she was rehoused. In recognition of the service failures the resident had experience, it wished to offer her rent credit of two weeks’. As the resident’s account was not in arrears, it was able to transfer this directly to her on the provision of bank account details.
The resident responded to the landlord on 24 March, rejecting its offer. In her email, she said that the offer was “disgusting”, and that the landlord had not done anything to support her over the years. She added:
1. The landlord should assess the standards of surveying properties before they are rented out. Adding that someone only had to open the kitchen cupboards to find rodent faeces.
2. Pest control had attended the property and advised that the loft was full of rubbish left by the previous occupants.
3. Photos could not accurately show the condition the tiles were in – some were loose and had not been fitted correctly in the first place.
4. She had been informed that she needed to get a budgeting loan to pay for decorating and furniture – and was advised that she would not be given any assistance to help with the decorating.
5. With regards to housing applications, she accepted that she had not always provided the correct documents in time. The resident explained that her mental health was not good, and she found the process overwhelming. She added that on the second occasion, she had tried to provide the correct information but was unable to do so before the application was closed.
6. She was confused by the landlord’s statement that it was concerned about the effects the property was having on her wellbeing as nobody had been in touch to discuss the situation, and to see what could be done.
7. The offer of two weeks’ rent was insulting as she had spent more than that to get the property in a suitable condition.
8. She wished to move into a two-bedroom property with her daughter – who was close to turning three (at the time).
The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 1 May. In its letter, it said:
1. It noted that the resident was unhappy with the offer of two weeks’ rent credit; and the way her housing application was handled. It also acknowledged that the resident had asked questions about its housing policy, and the availability of two-bedroom properties in the district.
2. It wished to apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns. It wished to explain that members of the team had been assisting with the council’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and complaint responses were therefore taking longer than it had wished.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about problems she had experienced soon after the tenancy began; and that these had been addressed in the complaint response of 4 March.
4. The council had changed repairs contractor since then; and it had also reviewed and improved its voids process. It explained that:
  1. it now undertook a full property survey, together with a 360 degree virtual tour. It said that this enabled it to produce detailed stock condition data,
  2. photographs are taken before the survey and at the end after the completion of any void works. This information can then be viewed at any time.
5. While it noted that the situation was quite different when the resident moved to the property, it hoped that she could see that it had taken steps to improve services based on the feedback it had received.
6. The new flats which the resident had referred to were allocated as elderly person housing. They were previously sheltered housing, but had been re-developed by the council.
7. It had arranged for the resident’s housing application to be reinstated, and listed the documents that it needed from the resident in order to progress her application.
8. It was aware that there were a number of outstanding jobs at the property; but as the resident was aware, only urgent repairs were being carried out owing to the pandemic. It noted that the socket repair which the resident had reported was completed on 27 April.
9. Once it was in a position to resume works, it would contact the resident so that the remaining jobs could be complete. This included clearing the loft space, if required.
10. It had considered the offer of rent credit, and wished to offer a further £100 to offset some of the resident’s decorating costs.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter.

Assessment and findings

Condition of the property and repairs from 2020 onwards

In response to the concerns that were raised by the resident in February 2020, the landlord appropriately arranged for the property to be inspected so that necessary repairs could be identified and completed. When the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged that some repairs had been outstanding for some time. The landlord explained that a change in contractor and an associated backlog had resulted in the resident’s repairs not being completed. In recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord offered two weeks’ rent credit, and a further £100 when the complaint was escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to identify and acknowledge its failings, the landlord’s attempt to put things right was not entirely appropriate. In the circumstances, the landlord should reasonably have identified what repairs had been outstanding – and for how long – and apportioned compensation payments accordingly. The complaint responses do not contain sufficient detail to enable to Ombudsman to identify what repairs were logged in 2019 and 2020, which were deemed to be outstanding in March 2020, and when they were completed.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer some compensation; however, some outstanding repairs would have been more inconvenient – and had a greater impact – than others. As such, when the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it should have carried out some assessment of when it was first notified of certain repairs and the extent to which it had failed to meet its service standards. The landlord should then have considered what remedy would be most appropriate in the circumstances.
By offering an overall sum of compensation, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has understood and considered how the resident was – and has been -affected by the failings in its service. It follows that there is nothing to suggest that the landlord has taken proportionate steps to try to put things right.

Pest infestations

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised specific concerns about pest infestations at the property and that they had been recurring since the tenancy began.
As detailed above, the handbook sets out both the landlord’s and resident’s responsibilities in relation to infestations. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that in June 2019, the resident reported that there was an infestation in the property – originating from the roof. The resident had contacted the relevant department so that treatment could be undertaken. The landlord’s records show that it was believed to be a rat infestation – and was therefore its responsibility to resolve, in line with the handbook. The landlord noted at the time that this was the third time an infestation had been reported. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any information about what steps were taken by pest control, and whether any repairs were needed in the roof area.
In February 2020, it was noted that the resident had reported mice in the kitchen. The landlord inspected this further and found droppings, and the point of entry. It is noted form the internal records that a works order was raised to block the point of entry and for pest control to clean the relevant area in March 2020. This was appropriate.
However, the resident had cause to report a further infestation in April 2020. It is noted from the internal records that the landlord raised an order in relation to this. However, it is not clear what steps were taken or if the problem has been resolved.
The evidence shows that pest control had been appropriately instructed in 2019 and 2020. However, the frequency of the reports does suggest that there may have been a wider issue – or that the matter needed to be investigated further to ascertain why the resident continued to be affected despite pest control carrying out treatments. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for further investigation to be undertaken to establish whether there was disrepair allowing the rodents to enter the property – or if the source was a neighbouring property that needed to be treated too. That the landlord has not taken such action is a failing in the circumstances.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it did not address the infestation(s), nor did it detail what action it had taken. The landlord should reasonably have detailed the reports it had received over the years, and any action that was taken in response. That the landlord did not provide such a response was a failing in the complaint handling. As detailed above, the landlord should reasonably have considered whether further investigation was warranted given the frequency of the reports. Undertaking such an assessment when responding to the complaint would have provided it with the opportunity to do so. This was therefore a missed opportunity by the landlord.

Transfer to a two-bedroom property

In response to the resident’s request to be transferred to a two-bedroom property, the landlord explained that there was a severe shortage of housing in the area, and that whilst the resident was eligible for a transfer, it was necessary for the relevant form to be completed, and supporting information to be provided alongside it.
The resident’s concerns about the size of the property and the difficulties that she is experiencing as a result are acknowledged, and they are not disputed. However, the landlord’s response and information that is provided was appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with the information contained in the handbook.
Given the shortage of two-bedroom properties, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with information about how else she could move property – for example, through a mutual exchange. That it did not provide the resident with such information was a shortcoming in the landlord’s response.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The resident was unhappy with the stage one response she received from the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint on 24 March. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request the next day, and advised that she would receive a response within 20 working days. The resident subsequently chased the matter as she had yet to receive a response, and the landlord’s had been missed. The stage two response was issued on 1 May – eight working days outside of the deadline.
Within the stage two letter, the landlord acknowledged that the response had been slightly delayed and explained why this was the case. The resident’s disappointment that the response was delayed is noted. It is also acknowledged that it would have been good customer service to update the resident and inform her that the deadline would not be met. However, the response was not unduly delayed; and taking into consideration the unprecedented situation with the coronavirus pandemic, which was unfolding at the time, the slight delay was not a failing in the circumstances.
However, as detailed above, the complaint responses did not contain sufficient detail or assessment to demonstrate that the landlord had taken the time to investigate and understand the resident’s complaints and concerns. There was no discussion surrounding the pest infestations and the actions the landlord had taken despite these being a specific part of the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, the remedies which were proposed were not explained, and there is no evidence to show that the landlord was offering a proportionate remedy aimed at putting things right. This was a failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the concerns that the resident raised about the condition of the property and outstanding repairs from 2020 onwards.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to pest infestations at the property.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred to a two-bedroom property.
4. Service failure in how the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately inspected the property to identify what repairs were outstanding. When the landlord issued its complaint response, it acknowledged that some repairs had been delayed. The landlord also provided some explanation for why there had been a delay. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was inappropriate in the circumstances. While it was appropriate to try to put things right, the landlord’s offer did not take into consideration each individual repair and how the resident may have been impacted as a result of the delay.
While the pest infestation(s) had been reported to pest control over the years, the frequency of the reports should have resulted in the landlord taking further action to investigate the source of the problem – and whether there was disrepair allowing rodents to enter the property. That it did not take such action was inappropriate.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to transfer to a two-bedroom property was appropriate and in line with the information detailed in the Tenants Handbook. However, it would have been helpful to provide the resident with information about participating in a mutual exchange.
Although the landlord’s stage two response was delayed, this was not a failing given the circumstances. However, the complaint responses were lacking in detail and did not contain sufficient information to show that the landlord had fully investigated and considered the concerns that had been raised by the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the two weeks’ rent credit and £100 that was offered during the complaints process.
2. Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified by the Ombudsman.
Within eight weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. assess what repairs had been outstanding at the time of the resident’s complaint in February 2020, when they were initially reported, and when they were completed.
2. consider each outstanding repair individually and the inconvenience that was caused as a result of the delay.
3. offer a proportionate amount of compensation for each delayed repair.
4. consider whether further investigation and/or treatment is warranted if pest infestation continues to be a problem.
The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with details of the actions taken in respect of the above orders.

Recommendation

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should review its complaint handling in light of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.