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

Westminster City Council (202211649)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211649

Westminster City Council

18 May 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of pest issues outside the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident, who is a secure tenant, informed the landlord on 2 October 2021, that there was an issue with excessive mess caused by pigeon faeces outside of his property. He advised that he was unable to open his windows as the problem had become so bad. Additionally, he advised that he was concerned about potential health and safety issues that be caused by the exposure to the pigeon mess.
  2. The landlord was aware that access to the areas could be difficult due to the design of the building, and approached a contractor for a quote. A quote was received, and a survey was carried out on 3 November 2021. It was agreed that the pigeon mess would be cleaned and that deterrents would then be placed to prevent the issues for re occurring. On 21 February 2022, the landlord approved the quote and asked the contractor for the work to be carried out.
  3. On 22 May 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint. He advised that the mess was “horrendous” and that he had reported the issue but nothing had been done. Following this, in early June 2022, the landlord carried out a wash to remove some of the pigeon mess (the exact date has not been made clear in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman). However, the higher areas of the building were not cleaned due to a lack of the right equipment.
  4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response (9 June 2022) advised that a further inspection had determined that a cherry picker was required for the work to be completed. It also advised that the delay in beginning the work was due to difficulties in finding an appropriate contractor to carry out the work. The landlord advised that it would keep the resident informed regarding any updates. This work ultimately began on 8 August 2022, and was due to be completed on 12 August 2022. However, the contractor required further materials to complete the work and that its target date to complete the work was 25 August 2022.
  5. This was reiterated in the landlord’s final response to the complaint (22 August 2022). The landlord also upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that it had not kept the resident appropriately informed, as well as agreeing that the time taken to resolve the matter had been unacceptable. It offered £120 as compensation. This was broken down to £50 for the delay and its impact, £50 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and £20 for the delay in providing its final response.
  6. An inspection on 9 September 2022 confirmed that some areas had been missed during the final pest control works. This was due to the fact that the cherry picker was not able to reach those areas of the building. On 15 September 2022, the landlord and contractor inspected the property to determine whether the work could be completed from within the resident’s property. However, it was then decided that this was not feasible. Eventually, on 31 September 2022, a new contractor was appointed who could complete the work, and the remaining works were carried out on 21 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s pest control specification states that the removal of pigeon faeces is to be completed within two working days.
  2. The landlord’s pest control specification also states that installation of pigeon proofing measures is to be completed within ten working days.

The landlord’s handling of pest issues outside the resident’s property

  1. Following the resident’s reports of excessive amounts of pigeon mess outside of his windows, the landlord had a duty to remove and clean the mess, and to assess whether a deterrent was required to prevent the issue from recurring. Additionally, the landlord had a duty to keep the resident informed throughout the process.
  2. Whilst the mess was ultimately cleared and deterrents were placed, it is clear that this was not completed within the landlord published timeframes. Given the hygiene and health issues that could have been potentially caused by the presence of the mess, this was a significant failure by the landlord. The landlord also failed to appropriately keep the resident informed and manage his expectations. These failures were acknowledged by the landlord and compensation was awarded in recognition of this. As such, the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the compensation awarded was fair and reasonable.
  3. In recognition of the delay in works, and the impact this had on the resident, the landlord offered £50. Whilst it was positive for the landlord to recognise its failing and offer compensation, it is the opinion of this Service that this amount was not sufficient to fully compensate for the delay and the impact caused to the resident.
  4. The resident first reported the issue on 2 October 2021, and the work was not completed until over one year later on 24 October 2021. This is a significant delay, particularly when the landlord’s own policies and procedures are considered. For example, the landlord’s pest control specification states that the removal of pigeon faeces is to be completed within two working days, and deterrents placed within ten working days of confirmation of the required work.
  5. Whilst this Service accepts that the landlord struggled to find a contractor who was suitable to complete the work, this level of delay in completing the work was not acceptable or fair to the resident. As well as the potential hygiene issues raised by the resident, it was also noted that due to being unable to open the bedroom windows, the summer heatwave was a particularly difficult time for the resident and his family. The resident advised that his children were unable to sleep in their bedroom during this time. This was not acknowledged or addressed by the landlord in its complaint response. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to increase the compensation offered to be more in line with the failing and detriment caused.
  6. The landlord also offered £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident through pursuing the complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation in recognition of this as it had acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident informed during the first few months of the complaint. This had caused unnecessary involvement by the resident through having to pursue updates and responses.
  7. Keeping the resident informed and managing expectations is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to do this and confirmed that an operative had taken the responsibility to ensure that the resident was kept informed going forward. The resident confirmed that this had been done and that the operative had been positive in doing so. With this in mind, the compensation offered for the time and trouble was appropriate and the Ombudsman will not order the landlord to increase this.
  8. As noted, it is promising that the landlord had recognised its failures and attempted to remedy such failures in the form of compensation and an apology. However, it is the opinion of this Service that the compensation offered was not fairly representative of the maladministration caused by the landlord. As such, it would be appropriate for he landlord to increase its offer of compensation in recognition of the significant delay in managing the pest control works.
  9. This Service’s remedies guidance states that for instances in which there was maladministration by a landlord that adversely affected the resident, a payment of £100 to £600 would be appropriate. With this in mind, and in addition to the £120 already offered, the landlord should pay a further £250 in recognition of the delay in organising and completing the works. This brings the total amount of compensation to £370.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in regard to its landlord’s handling of pest issues outside the property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £370 in recognition of its failures within four weeks of the date of this investigation. This is inclusive of the £120 already offered by the landlord. This can be broken down to:
  1. £300 for the delay in managing works and the detriment caused.
  2. £50 for time and trouble.
  3. £20 for the delay in providing a final response to the complaint.