Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s reports of poor housing conditions and a mice infestation in his private rented flat. There were some instances of poor communication and complaint-handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and this is a satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:
1. did not take adequate steps to investigate and resolve his concerns about disrepair and hazards in his privately rented flat and the common parts of the block;
2. provided poor customer service and failed to properly communicate with him;
3. refused to act on his request for a Stage Two investigation of his complaint;
4. wrongly decided he was not homeless on the grounds it was reasonable for him to continue occupying the flat.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated parts a) to c) of the complaint. I did not investigate part d) for the reasons given in paragraphs 51 and 52.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
5. An applicant who is dissatisfied with a homelessness review decision can appeal to the County Court on a point of law within 21 days. The Ombudsman would usually expect someone to use this legal remedy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr X and considered all the evidence he sent me, which includes his emails to Council officers and photographs of his flat. I considered the Council’s reply to my enquiries and evidence from the records held by the Private Sector Housing Enforcement and Residential Licensing teams.
7. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X is a tenant in private rented accommodation. He lives with his wife and their two young children in a flat in a modern, multi-storey purpose-built block. Mr X’s landlord is responsible for repairs and pest control in his flat. A property management company appointed by the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the common parts and exterior of the block and for pest control in those areas.
9. Mr X and his family moved to the flat in November 2017. Shortly after moving in, Mr X began to complain to his landlord about damp and mould and a mice infestation in his flat. He also raised concerns with the property management company which manages the common parts and exterior of the block about a rat infestation and other matters.
10. Mr X’s landlord arranged for pest control contractors to carry out treatment for a mice infestation inside Mr X’s flat in early January 2018. They found mice droppings and left two bait boxes under the kitchen units. They advised the landlord to block some holes under the kitchen units and in the airing cupboard to prevent mice getting access. Mr X made a complaint about the pest control contractor. He alleged the inspection report was biased in favour of the landlord. He later made a complaint to the pest contractor’s trade body.
11. Mr X had asked his landlord to replace the carpet because he said it was contaminated by mice droppings. His landlord refused to replace it and advised Mr X to clean it. The landlord later offered to clean the carpet but Mr X did not accept this offer.
12. Mr X was not satisfied with the landlord’s response so he instructed solicitors to write to his landlord. He also contacted the Council’s Private Sector Housing Enforcement team in April 2018 to ask it to investigate housing conditions. He reported the following concerns:
• Refuse and waste food was left outside the block which encouraged foxes and rats;
• He could hear noise from rats inside the cavity walls of the block;
• He had found dead mice and mice droppings inside his flat.

The first inspection

13. On 18 April 2018 Officer A, a Technical Officer, visited to inspect the exterior and common parts of the block. He also inspected Mr X’s flat and found evidence of rodent droppings in the kitchen and bathroom. He initially contacted the property management company who explained they were not Mr X’s landlord and were only responsible for pest control in the common parts of the block. They knew about the rat problems outside the block and had appointed contractors to carry out a pest control programme. They had fitted rat blockers to the drains. Some of the problems were caused by some residents leaving rubbish outside the bin stores. They had written to remind residents of the need to dispose of refuse properly.
14. In early May Officer A contacted Mr X’s landlord. He arranged for a pest control contractor to inspect and treat Mr X’s flat on 29 May. The landlord contacted Mr X in early June to notify him of the date for the contractor’s follow-up visit. Mr X told the landlord the proposed date was not convenient because he had a medical appointment. Mr X did not propose an alternative date. Mr X also said he would wait for the Council to respond to his complaint about the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team before agreeing to any further visits by the pest control contractor.
15. I have seen some emails Officer A sent following the April 2018 inspection but there appear to be no inspection notes. When she replied to Mr X’s complaint about Officer A, his manager said he had visited to investigate the complaint about rodents in the bin store and common parts of the block. He had also inspected Mr X’s flat. He found no battery in the smoke alarm. Mr X said he had removed it and agreed to replace it. The technical officer had seen signs of a rodent infestation. He then contacted Mr X’s landlord who arranged for a pest control contractor to inspect and treat the flat.
16. The manager says Officer A did not see any disrepair in the flat. He did not complete an HHSRS assessment because the landlord had not been given advance notice of the inspection.

The second and third inspections

17. The landlord’s pest control contractors carried out further treatment to deal with the mice infestation in Mr X’s flat in January 2019.
18. Officers in the Private Sector Housing Enforcement and Residential Licensing teams carried out two inspections of Mr X’s flat in February and April 2019.
19. Both these inspections took place after Mr X resubmitted his complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2019. So what happened during these inspections was not part of his complaint. However, I have summarised the key inspection findings because they provide relevant evidence about conditions in Mr X’s flat and the mice infestation at that time.
20. Mr X’s flat is in a ward that was designated under a selective licensing scheme. Since March 2018 it has been compulsory for landlords of all private rented accommodation in that area to apply to the Council for a licence. Mr X’s landlord applied for a licence for Mr X’s flat in September 2018.
21. Before the licence was granted, Officer C, a manager in the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team, carried out a HHSRS inspection on 13 February 2019. According to her notes, she spent three hours at the property and block. She found some minor issues but her overall assessment was that the flat was in a decent condition. She saw no evidence of any current mice infestation. She made the following notes:
• Damp and mould growth: minimal damp in kitchen caused by perished seal behind splashback and some mould growth under sink – minor works needed to repair seal and remove mould;
• There was no evidence of damp in the hallway cupboard when she took measurements with a meter – an old leak had been rectified and the staining on the wall was old;
• Locks had been fitted to the bin stores to prevent unauthorised access but some residents did not bother to open the bin store and dumped their rubbish outside;
• Rat bait boxes were in place outside and the property management company had a pest control contract to deal with the issue;
• Rat proofing measures were in place;
• The landlord had been dealing with mice infestation inside property – she saw no droppings or dead mice during the inspection.
22. The Council granted Mr X’s landlord a licence in March 2019. Two officers from the Residential Licensing team inspected Mr X’s flat on 11 April 2019 to check compliance with the licence conditions. They were qualified to carry out HHSRS assessments.
23. They found:
• Mr X’s flat was generally in a very good state of repair;
• There were no Category 1 hazards;
• There were no obvious signs of damp or mould in the flat – both officers checked areas Mr X pointed out to them during the inspection and found they were dry.
• They informed the landlord they had seen signs of low level mice activity and some holes should be blocked to prevent them getting access;

The lead officer sent a schedule of defects to the landlord following the inspection. He also sent a copy to Mr X. The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to attend the following day to carry out further mice proofing works.

Complaints b) and c) - The Council’s communication with Mr X and its refusal to respond to his request for a Stage Two investigation

The corporate complaints procedure

24. There are two stages in the Council’s corporate complaints procedure.
25. Where the complaint is about a decision that can be challenged through an appeal or review procedure, it will not be investigated under the complaints procedure.
26. If a complaint is made against more than one Council service, the Council will send a co-ordinated single response if the complaints cannot be dealt with separately.
27. The Stage One response must include information about how to escalate the complaint to the next stage in the complaints procedure and the timescale for doing so. If a complainant expresses dissatisfaction with a reply to a complaint, but does not give specific reasons, the Council may decide not to escalate the complaint to the next stage.

Mr X’s first complaint

28. On 31 May Mr X sent a lengthy letter to the Housing Advice & Assessment team. It started with a request for a review of a decision made in April 2018 that he was not homeless. It closed with a request for a copy of his housing file. In between, Mr X inserted several emails regarding action taken by his landlord and Officer A and the lack of a HHSRS report. I do not consider Mr X made it clear in this letter that he wanted to make a complaint about the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team.
29. The Council received a complaint form from Mr X on 25 June 2018. He expressed dissatisfaction with two named officers in the Housing Advice & Assessment team and Officer A in the Private Sector Housing Enforcement. He said they had not properly considered the health hazards in his flat and the issues in the communal areas. He referred to a rat infestation and said his landlord and the property management company had denied responsibility.
30. In a separate email sent to a manager in the Housing Advice & Assessment team on 19 June he alleged that staff had been biased and not treated him fairly. He alleged his landlord had breached various legal duties. He expressed his view that the Council had not carried out a fair and unbiased investigation of his complaint about the rodent infestation and poor housing conditions. He asked for a copy of his housing file.
31. The complaint was registered as a Stage One complaint and passed to Officer B, a manager in the Housing Advice and Assessment team. Officer B sent a brief reply on 25 June. He explained that Mr X could challenge any adverse homelessness decision by using the statutory review procedure. He suggested Mr X should make a separate complaint to the Environmental Health service. Officer B said he could only deal with the housing advice and assessment part of the complaint. He said he would send Mr X a copy of the housing file by post.
32. Mr X replied two days later. He said he wanted to complain about Officer B because he had not properly investigated the complaint and ignored his concerns about the poor housing conditions.

Mr X’s request for a Stage Two investigation

33. In mid-July Mr X contacted Officer B again and specifically asked for his complaint to be investigated at Stage Two of the complaints procedure. It seems Officer B did not reply because he regarded Mr X’s complaint as being about the homelessness decision. He had already explained Mr X’s right to request a statutory review.
34. In early October 2018 Mrs X contacted an officer who had recently considered the request for a review of a homelessness decision. She also wrote to the Chief Executive. She complained in very general terms about poor customer service and communication and unfair treatment from officers in the Housing Options and Private Sector Housing Enforcement services. She did not name the officers and she did not give details of any specific incidents. She asked the Council to help stop the landlord’s possession proceedings and recover their tenancy deposit.
35. Around the same time, Mr X first contacted the Ombudsman. We decided his complaint was premature then because it had not been considered at Stage Two of the Councils’ complaints procedure. We referred it back to the Council for further investigation.
36. Meanwhile the Council registered Mrs X’s October 2018 complaint as a new Stage One complaint. It was passed to Officer B. On 24 October Officer B contacted Mrs X to explain he could not investigate the complaint about poor customer service unless she gave further details of the officers involved and when the incidents occurred.
37. Mr X replied. He said he had complained about Officer B before because he had refused to escalate his previous complaint to Stage Two of the complaints procedure. Mr X considered Officer B was biased. He said he needed more time to provide a detailed statement.
38. In late November 2018 Mr X contacted Officer B again. He asked for a meeting to discuss his complaint. Officer B told Mr X he would not handle the new complaint if Mr X believed he would not give it fair and unbiased consideration. He said an officer would not meet Mr X unless he provided more information about the substance of his complaint. The Council would then ask an appropriate officer to investigate it.
39. Mr X did not send Officer B any further information. Instead he resubmitted his complaint to us in January 2019.

Analysis

Complaint a)

40. The Council took proportionate steps to investigate Mr X’s complaint about poor housing conditions and a mice infestation. Officer A inspected Mr X’s flat and the external areas of the block in April 2018. He found signs of mice droppings in the flat and liaised with the landlord who agreed to send in pest control contractors to remedy the problem. The only other issue he identified during this inspection was a missing battery in the smoke alarm. Mr X agreed to replace it. Informal action was appropriate in these circumstances.
41. There seem to be no detailed inspection notes and Officer A’s findings were recorded in email correspondence. Although I would expect to see inspection notes, I do not consider the lack of these records made any difference to the outcome of this visit.
42. The two inspections in February and April 2019 found the flat was in a good overall condition and there were no current damp or mould issues. The landlord arranged for pest control contractors to carry out further works to deal with the mice in Mr X’s flat the day after the April inspection.
43. I have not found the Council was at fault.

Complaints b) and c)

44. I have read a considerable amount of Mr X’s email correspondence with the Council. He sent a significant volume of emails and copied them to several officers, some of whom did not work in the relevant service area. He raised multiple issues in many emails. Mr X inserted earlier email threads and long passages with legal references which made it more difficult for officers to identify the main points. Officers clearly found it difficult to manage his emails effectively.
45. Mr X’s Stage One complaint covered two different service areas: action taken by officers in the Housing Advice and Assessment team and an officer in the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team. It was allocated to a manager in the Housing Advice & Assessment team. It would have been good practice to have sent a copy of the complaint to a manager in the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team who could then have investigated Mr X’s concerns and sent a separate response. That did not happen. Instead Officer B told Mr X to make a separate complaint to that team. Although the Council could have handled this complaint differently, I do not consider this amounts to fault.
46. It seems Officer B did not reply to further emails from Mr X in June and July 2018 requesting a Stage Two investigation. I consider Mr X should have received some further contact at this point to explain the Council’s position and what he should do next if he was not satisfied with the Stage One reply.
47. In October 2018 Mrs X made a complaint about poor customer service. She did not identify any specific incidents or the officers involved. It was not possible to investigate such a broad-brush complaint. Officer B needed Mrs X to provide more details first. In the event, Mr X decided to pursue his complaints with the Ombudsman instead.
48. There have been some instances where officers did not reply to Mr X’s emails. The Council should certainly have responded to Mr X’s requests for a Stage Two investigation. And after we referred the complaint back to the Council in early November 2018, it did not carry out any further substantive investigation. This caused Mr X some avoidable frustration.

Agreed action

49. Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for its failure to respond in June and July 2018 to his requests for a Stage Two investigation, and to carry out any substantive investigation of his complaints following our referral in November 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed the investigation and found no fault in relation to complaint a). I found fault in relation to complaints b) and c).

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

51. I did not investigate part d) of the complaint. Mr X requested a statutory review of the decision that he was not homeless. The review decision was made in September 2018. The decision letter explained Mr X’s right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law if he wished to challenge the review decision.
52. As Mr X had a legal remedy, the Ombudsman would not usually investigate a complaint about the homelessness review decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman