Summary: We found no fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s report of an insect infestation in her home.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with her reports of insect infestations in her home caused by leaks in the building in which she lived. Miss X said the Council’s failure to resolve the problem badly affected her home life and caused much stress and financial loss. Miss X wanted the Council to stop the insect infestation in her home.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated that part of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions since it opened an investigation in September 2021. I have not investigated the remainder of Miss X’s complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 32 to 35 of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:

• considered Miss X’s written complaint and supporting information;
• considered the complaint correspondence between Miss X and the Council;
• considered the Council’s records about Miss X’s reports of leaks causing insect infestations; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Miss X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Miss X is a leaseholder and a third party ('the Company’) owns the building that includes her home. In late August 2021, Miss X contacted the Council about insect infestation in her home and referred to a water leak in her neighbour’s property. The Council noted the problem described by Miss X pointed to the presence of stagnant water.
8. In September 2021, the Council opened an investigation into the insect infestation. The Council then contacted Miss X asking for information. Another person (‘the Representative’), with Miss X’s written consent, replied. The Council told the Representative it needed evidence of the source of any leak in the building. And, as a leaseholder, Miss X would be initially responsible for repairs to her home, and it would expect Miss X to have evidence of any leak affecting her home. The Council also said it would contact the Company for information about drain surveys of the building.
9. In October 2021, the Council updated the Representative saying it had contacted the Company which said it was ‘currently investigating alleged leaks’. The Council chased the Company for an update in late October and updated the Representative.
10. The Council also sought further information from the Representative about earlier contact between Miss X and the Company. The Representative told the Council the Company had told Miss X it had fixed a previous leak in 2020. And plumbers later engaged by Miss X had said stagnant water from that leak was causing the insect infestation. The Representative also told the Council that contractors from the Company had recently visited Miss X and said they had found a leak in her home but not her neighbour’s property. The contractors had also said the property below Miss X’s home reported a leak in February 2022. The Representative said the contractors had told Miss X she should claim on her own insurance.
11. In response, the Council told the Representative it had to determine the cause of the insect infestation, which was not a hazard but suggested a drainage problem. The Council also said it had asked the Company for the third time to provide information about its drainage inspections. The Council said it had not visited Miss X’s home as it did visual but not intrusive inspections, the latter involving, for example, pulling up floorboards. It therefore needed information from the Company. The Council also told the Representative that any stagnant water from a repaired 2020 leak should now have dried up or steeped through the building. The presence of insects pointed to a continuing water source.
12. In November 2021, the Council again chased the Company for information and contacted the Representative. The Representative told the Council that Miss X now understood the building leak was in a communal pipe between her home and her neighbour’s property.
13. In mid-November 2021, the Company contacted the Council. It said its contractor had inspected the property next to Miss X’s home and found no leaks. It believed a communal pipe that provided services for Miss X’s home might need repair but to confirm this needed intrusive work to expose the pipe. It was discussing with the Representative how to carry out the work with minimal disruption to Miss X and her home. Miss X had asked for two weeks’ notice before work started, and the Company had suggested she might wish to move out while the work took place. The Company said it hoped to start the work in late November and was waiting to hear back from the Representative.
14. The Council replied to the Company asking it to confirm it was responsible for repairs to the communal pipe. The Council also asked to be kept updated and for the Company to confirm if it found any disrepair in the pipe was the cause of the leak in the property below Miss X’s home. The Council also asked how long the work would take and who would pay if Miss X temporarily moved out. The Council also contacted the Representative, setting out what the Company had said, and asking for an update on Miss X’s position on the proposed work. The Representative confirmed the work was agreed for late November.
15. The Council then offered to visit Miss X’s home. Later, Miss X needed to cancel the agreed visit. Emails between the Council and Representative showed unsuccessful efforts to rearrange the meeting.
16. In December 2021, the Council contacted the Representative asking for an update on the November work. In the emails that followed, the Representative said the work had not taken place ‘due to a breakdown in communication’. The work would now likely take place in early January 2022.
17. In mid-January 2022, the Council contacted the Representative for an update about the work. The Representative replied work had started but was incomplete. The Council asked the Representative to get in touch once the work was complete.
18. In early April 2022, the Council contacted the Company and the Representative asking for an update on the work. The Representative replied there was no update as the work was ‘pushed back at Miss X’s request for personal reasons’. The Representative said the parties were to agree a new date from the start of May. The Company also replied saying dates for the work had been agreed and then cancelled. And, in early March, it had been told access to Miss X’s home would not be available for personal reasons until early May. The Company said it was trying to agree a new date with all parties affected by the work. And it was making special arrangements with its contractor as one party would only provide access on a Sunday. The Council replied to both the Representative and the Company asking to be kept informed about the work and its completion.
19. In early June 2022, the Council again contacted the Representative and Company seeking an update and was told work would take place the next day. The Representative said they would update the Council once the work was complete. A week later, the Council asked the Representative if the work was now complete. The Representative said the Company’s contractors had carried out a repair but would have to return once they had a ‘spare part’ needed to replace part of the pipe system. The Representative also said Miss X had been in touch earlier that day to say the insects were returning to her home. The Council asked the Representative to be kept informed of progress and, in late June, again contacted the Representative. The Representative said the contractor had obtained the spare part within four days. The Representative was waiting for Miss X to provide dates for the contractor to return and would then update the Council.
20. In June 2022, Miss X brought her complaint about the Council to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

21. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her reports of an insect problem in her home from 2019. I have only considered the Council’s actions since September 2021, when it opened its third investigation after contact from Miss X in August 2021. The Council’s third investigation was nine months old when Miss X contacted the Ombudsman. Nine months is a long time and I recognise Miss X would likely have expected the Council to resolve the insect problem within that time.
22. My role is to consider whether there is evidence the Council acted with fault during those nine months. And, if there is evidence of fault, whether it caused Miss X significant injustice. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our limited resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision on whether a council has acted with fault. This means we do not try to answer every question or address each detailed point raised by a complainant about what a council said and did. So, we cannot always respond to complaints in the detail people might want.
23. Here, the Council contacted Miss X asking for information to help with its investigation. The Council then explained to the Representative that it needed evidence of the source of any leak. The Council also contacted the Company for information about drainage surveys, which should help in evidencing any leak. And the Company confirmed to the Council that it was investigating a reported leak in Miss X’s building. These steps took place within a month of the Council opening its investigation in September 2021. And the steps taken are those to be reasonably expected when a council starts gathering evidence about a reported problem. I found no fault here.
24. In the following month, the Council kept in touch with the Representative and sought more information. The Council also chased the Company for updates about its leak investigation and was told about a contractor’s visit to the building. The contractor’s visit had identified a possible problem with a communal pipe that needed further investigation. So, within two months of the Council opening its investigation, a possible source of a leak, which might link to Miss X’s insect problem, had been found. I saw no evidence the Council acted with fault during this second month of its investigation.
25. Having identified a possible leak in a communal part of the building, it was likely the Company’s primary responsibility to deal with it. And in the third month of its investigation, the Council continued to contact the Representative and the Company. Communication at this point focussed on arrangements to carry out any necessary work to the communal pipe, which led to an agreed access date in late November. In December 2021, about three months after opening its investigation, the Council was chasing for an update on the work. I saw no fault by the Council during this third month.
26. Unfortunately, the works did not take place in late November. That was not the Council’s fault. And the fourth month of the Council’s open investigation was taken up with arrangements between the Company, Miss X and other occupants of the building to set a new date for the work. That agreed date was early January 2022.
27. At the start of month five, the Council contacted the Representative for an update. While work had taken place it was incomplete. Again, that was not the Council’s fault. During month five, the Council asked to be kept informed by the Representative about completion of the work. That was a reasonable and appropriate step to take as agreeing a date to complete the works was a matter for the Company and affected residents including Miss X.
28. It was during month seven, early April 2022, the Council next contacted the Representative, and the Company. There was no evidence the Council had taken action on Miss X’s case in the intervening ten weeks. Ten weeks with no action is a long time. However, the Council in earlier contacts with the Representative, and the Company, had repeatedly asked to be kept informed about the work. Given the circumstances, I did not find the Council was at fault although it took no action between late January and early April 2022.
29. From the April 2022 contact, the Council knew the parties were to agree a date for works from early May, about eight months since it opened its investigation. Not hearing from the Representative or the Company, the Council sought an update in early June, which was month nine of its investigation. The Council might have chased for information sooner, for example, mid to late May. However, it had repeatedly asked both the Representative and the Company to keep it informed about the work. It had also received assurances that it would be updated. I therefore did not find the Council at fault for waiting until early June 2022 to chase for information. And, if the Council had asked for an update sooner, it would not have made a difference as the work was to take place in June.
30. The Council followed up on the proposed June work. But, while work took place, unfortunately it remained incomplete. Again, this was not the Council’s fault. And, after nine months, the Council continued to await an update from the Representative and or the Company confirming completion of the work. I saw no fault here by the Council. And, until completion of the work, the Council could not properly assess whether it would have resolved Miss X’s insect problem.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I completed my investigation finding no fault in how the Council responded to Miss X’s September 2021 contact reporting insect problems in her home.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. In March 2019, the Council opened an investigation case after Miss X reported problems with insects in her home. The Council closed that case in November 2019. A complaint in 2022 about the Council’s 2019 investigation is a late complaint (see paragraph 4). I saw no good reason to now investigate a complaint about how the Council handled Miss X’s 2019 case.
33. In June 2020, the Council opened a further investigation case after Miss X reported problems with insects in her home. The Council closed that case in April 2021. Miss X found out this had happened in August 2021 and complained to the Council, which complaint led to her coming to the Ombudsman.
34. The Council said it had seen an October 2020 letter sent to Miss X’s legal adviser. The letter said a leak had been dealt with and invited Miss X to contact the sender’s insurer to make a claim. The Council said its normal practice was to close cases where, after a reasonable time, there was no contact. Here, it had closed its second investigation in April 2021 as it had had no further contact from Miss X after it received the October 2020 letter.
35. The Council responded to Miss X’s August 2021 contact by explaining when and why it had closed its 2019 and 2020 investigations. The Council also opened a third investigation in September 2021 into Miss X’s further report of insects in her home. Given the Council opened a third case to consider the insect problem in Miss X’s home, I see no good reason to investigate its actions between June 2020 and April 2021. Rather, it was appropriate and proportionate for any Ombudsman investigation to focus on the Council’s actions since September 2021.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman