From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202346463)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346463

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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 the resident’s pest concerns.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house which the landlord owns and manages. It let the property to her under an assured tenancy agreement.
  2. The resident reported concerns about pest control, the condition of her neighbour’s garden, and the management of communal bins to the landlord. Its handling of these concerns were the subject of the resident’s complaints.
  3. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2024. She said residents’ dumped rubbish in and around the bin shed which the landlord did not regularly clean. She added a neighbouring garden was full of rubbish which was a breeding ground for rats which she had living her loft. She also said there were holes in the fence between the neighbouring properties that required repairs.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 February 2024 and it sent a stage 1 response to her on 18 February 2024. It said it had escalated her concerns, it would act on her fly tipping concerns, and it would clear the rubbish and repair the fence. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience the matters caused, upheld the complaint, and offered her £50 compensation.
  5. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 18 February 2024. She complained about rats coming into her house from bin sheds and her neighbour’s cluttered garden which was full of rubbish. She reported delays in carrying out pest control and completing fence and drain repairs. She said the landlord did not clean the communal bins regularly which contributed to the pest issues. She said its £50 offer of goodwill was unacceptable.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 14 March 2024, and it sent its stage 2 response to her on 4 April 2024. It said it raised a fence repair which it would complete before 26 May 2024 and it would book an appointment with her urgently. It also said it would visit the property to clear the rubbish and find solutions to help with the pest issues. It added it would regularly clear rubbish from nearby bins and it would consider installing CCTV and signage about refuse management. The landlord said it would also contact her neighbour about the matters. It upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor communication and its complaint handling. It offered the resident £650 which it broke down as £50 from its earlier stage 1 response, £350 for time, trouble, and inconvenience related to its housing services, and £250 for poor complaint handling.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 2 follow-on response to the resident on 2 July 2024. It said it would ensure her property was pest-proof but residents handled pest treatment. It said it would arrange pest services if a property was not pest-proof or if its inaction contributed to pest infestations. It said it had received a legal notice from an environmental protection officer (EPO) which had a schedule of pest treatment, repairs, and housing management actions it must complete. It said it had instructed a pest contractor and asked the neighbour to clear his garden. It offered the resident a further £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to delays and poor communication. It also offered her £100 for any future inconvenience she might experience while it treated pests in the approaching 3 months.
  8. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 13 September 2024 about its lack of contact about pest issues. She said to resolve the complaint the landlord should keep to the promises it made in its stage 2 response and provide her with compensation.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 19 September 2024 and it sent a stage 1 response to her on 25 September 2024. It said the complaint was about its handling of complaints and pest control. It said it could investigate a complaint once so its response would follow on from its earlier stage 2 reply. It said it closed old works orders when it raised new orders for the same issue. It acknowledged this may cause confusion but it was tracking 3 open pest control orders. It could not find evidence it contacted or updated the resident after 11 July 2024. It apologised for its communication failings, upheld the complaint, and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 September 2024. She said her concerns were more than a lack of communication; it had given her incorrect advice, she still had rats in her property which were coming from next door, it was not storing the communal bins in the bin sheds, and it had done nothing.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and it sent its final stage 2 response to her on 1 November 2024. It said it had attended her property several times since sending its previous response on 2 July 2024. It said its pest contractor had started a program of baiting and said sources of food, the communal bins, and the feeding of birds could attract vermin. It added its drainage contractor found a displaced joint using CCTV which it said it would repair. The landlord said it had inspected the roof, loft space, and fencing to find entry points but perimeter fencing would not stop most vermin climbing to gain entry. It added it could not discuss her neighbour’s tenancy due to data protection, but it was addressing the resident’s concerns. It said it was unable to change the communal bins as the local authority owned these but it would complete regular inspections to address fly tipping and overflowing bins. It said it had asked the responsible teams to progress repairs and it apologised for its poor communication. It upheld the complaint and increased its earlier offer of £50 for time, trouble, and inconvenience to £150.
  12. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said to put the matters right the landlord should complete pest control works, make sure residents manage their gardens and communal bins correctly, and reply to her emails.
  13. The landlord completed internal pest treatment, pest-proofing, fence, and drain repairs but the resident told us she was still unhappy on 9 September 2025. She said the landlord did not use the bin stores and its refuse arrangements had not improved rubbish left outside her house. She also said her neighbour’s garden was still untidy and the landlord had not cleaned the property after treating the pests.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We have considered the overall impact of the situation on the resident and landlord’s compensation offers within our assessment of its handling of the resident’s pest concerns. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. The resident raised several complaints with the landlord about its handling of her pest control concerns and the associated repairs between February 2024 and September 2025. The landlord investigated these complaints under 2 different complaint references. This meant it provided 2 different stage 2 responses which looked at different time periods and a follow-on response to its first stage 2 reply. As the complaints all address the landlord’s handling of the resident’s pest concerns, we will investigate all of them in this report for ease.

The resident’s pest concerns

  1. The landlord arranged for a pest contractor to treat rats in the resident’s street on 10 and 24 November 2023. The landlord’s pest control guidance says it deals with pests in communal areas but pests inside individual properties are usually a resident’s responsibility. It was reasonable for it to employ a specialist contractor to complete pest control in the communal areas.
  2. The landlord agreed to investigate its refuse management and the neighbour’s garden issues on 7 February 2024. This was in response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of the same day. This was positive. It also told her it raised works for a pest contractor to complete a 3-stage works programme which it started 2 days later. Its pest control guidance says it handles cleaning communal bins and instructs pest contractors if it finds pests. Its repairs and maintenance procedure says it has discretion to treat infestations where there is a risk of the issue spreading or recurring. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate and treat the pest issues in the resident’s property in response to her concerns. In doing so it recognised that the communal bins and the condition of the neighbour’s garden were contributing factors.
  3. The pest contractor completed pest treatments while the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint. The landlord also completed bi-monthly bulk refuse collections. But it did not resolve the fence repair, the condition of the neighbour’s garden, and the poor use of communal bins. This was unreasonable. Consequently, the pest contractor had not resolved the issues by the time the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 April 2024. The landlord recognised these failings and explained what else it would do to resolve the resident’s concerns. It offered her £350 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience its repair delays caused which was reasonable. However, it did not keep to its stage 2 commitments after sending its response – such as installing signage or CCTV, clearing the neighbour’s garden, or improving its communal bin management. These failings increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  4. The resident sent a substantial number of emails and regularly telephoned the landlord to request updates about its handling of the issues. She explained the matters significantly affected her wellbeing and home life. The landlord did not appropriately respond to her repeated requests for information. It also did not provide clear information about how and when it would resolve her concerns in keeping with its stage 2 promises. It would have been reasonable for it to have contacted her regularly to agree action plans and manage her expectations. Alternatively, for it to discuss rehousing options with her. Instead, it sent letters that lacked detail and it referred her concerns to its complaints, estates, and housing teams without taking ownership of the issues. The landlord’s poor communication, pest control, and housing management failures caused the resident significant distress, time, and trouble. Consequently, she incurred further time and trouble escalating the matter to an environmental health officer (EHO).
  5. The EHO wrote to the landlord on 18 June 2024 about its inspection. It said the neighbour’s garden was heavily hoarded and likely to contribute to the pests. This advice contradicted the landlord’s internal email of 5 June 2024 which said the neighbour had cleared his garden but it might not be to the resident’s satisfaction. The landlord should have ensured the garden met acceptable standards before confirming it was satisfactory. The EHO asked it to remove and prevent the storage of accumulated items in the neighbouring garden. It also recommended it to survey and treat the neighbouring properties. It also asked it to confirm what intervention it had in place to address fly tipping.
  6. The landlord did not reply to the EHO as asked. Consequently, the EHO served the landlord with a legal notice on 25 June 2024. This notice instructed the landlord to follow a schedule of works and complete a full survey and comprehensive pest treatment to the grounds of both properties and the resident’s loft. The landlord’s failure to respond to the EHO and its failure to address the repairs and refuse concerns was inappropriate, given the health and safety concerns the EHO raised.
  7. However, the landlord did start action in keeping with the works schedule in the EHO’s notice. It also reviewed its earlier stage 2 response, which was reasonable under the circumstances. Its July 2024 follow on response offered the resident a further £250 for its poor repair handling and £100 for its future handling of pest control. It also referred to the EHO orders which was reasonable to manage the resident’s expectations. However, the landlord did not sufficiently address the health and safety concerns the resident and the EHO raised. Its failure to resolve the matters, or update to the resident was likely to further increase the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. She raised a further complaint about the matters on 13 September 2024.
  8. On 8 October 2024 the EHO emailed the landlord to say it had not received a response in keeping with its legal notice, which expired on 16th July 2024. It said the landlord had not followed its schedule of works. It also said it had not received evidence it completed pest treatment internally and to the gardens. Also, that it had not revied its pest contractor’s report with findings and recommendations. The EHO said, until the landlord supplied the information asked, it could not give an extension. It said the landlord was not to carry out proofing until it had evidence there was no active infestation and doing so would breach its notice.
  9. The landlord investigated the resident’s further complaints about fence repairs, poor communication, and its handling of its earlier stage 2 promises. It sent its final response to her on 1 November 2024 which summarised the action it was taking to address the pest and refuse management issues, the neighbour’s garden, and fly tipping. It was right for it to update the resident to manage her expectations and apologise for its poor communication. However, it did not recognise the detriment its failings had on her. It did not consider how its failures contributed to the pest issues in her home. Additionally, it did not refer to the environmental health notice or provide an update on its response to the notice which was a missed opportunity to fully update the resident.
  10. When a landlord acknowledges failings, we will consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we assess whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  11. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports of pest issues and the contributing factors and it repeatedly said it would address these matters. However, at the time of its final complaint response it had not resolved the issues. The resident lived in a property with pest issues while the landlord made little progress addressing the contributing factors. There is no evidence the landlord considered alternative rehousing options while it completed repairs, pest control treatment, garden clearance, and put in place proper refuse management. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
  12. The landlord recognised and apologised for its poor communication and repairs handling failings. It also offered the resident a total compensation of £750 for its poor repair handling. However, the extent of the detriment the landlord failings had on the resident over an unreasonable time was significant. She was reliant on the landlord’s action to remedy the pest issues that she had limited control over. Additionally, the landlord did not appropriately action or remedy the issues in keeping with the EHO’s legal notice and works schedule. Taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s pest concerns.
  13. The landlord’s compensation award was not in keeping with our remedies guidance where there have been significant failings which had a detrimental impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £250 (totalling £1,000) as proportionate compensation for it significant failure to address the resident’s pest concerns. This sum reflects the fact that the resident had to rely on the landlord’s action to address the refuse management issues, and the neighbour’s garden before she could act in relation to the pests.
  14. We have ordered the landlord to inspect the loft of the property and write to the resident and us with an update and a timetable for any works needed following the pest infestations.
  15. We also ordered the landlord to review the bin storage next to the property with a view to reducing potential pest infestations; and consider what action it can take to combat fly tipping in the car park including signage and CCTV (as set out in its stage 2 response of April 2024).

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 28 January 2024 in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of the complaint. This caused time and trouble to the resident resubmitting the complaint on 7 February 2024.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 18 February 2024 was poor. Landlords should use complaints to find issues and introduce positive changes. However, it did not fully investigate the complaint such as by showing how its repair, housing, and estate management failings contributed to the pest concerns. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.8 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. It said it asked internal teams to respond to these issues. It would have been better if it provided dates, or other information to manage the resident’s expectations.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 18 February 2024 until 14 March 2024. This was 5 working days later than the Code. This caused the resident further time and trouble chasing the landlord about her complaint. Two days later it said it would respond to her complaint within 30 days which included the time she waited for it to register the complaint. The landlord’s failure to administer complaints and its explanation of this as ‘regrettable’ was inappropriate. It restated the 30-day timescale to the resident again in its email of 25 March 2024. Its failings caused the resident further time and trouble clarifying why it did not keep to its 20-working day complaint policy.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 4 April 2024, 32 working days after she sent it on 18 February 2024. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaint policy which says it would send a stage 2 reply within 20 working days of escalation.
  5. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it did not accept the resident’s complaint of 28 January 2024 until 7 February 2024 as she had not sent it to the correct email address. We can see the benefit of introducing dedicated inboxes for repairs and complaints. However, we expect landlords to be able to find, prioritise, and forward complaints, where appropriate.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response listed actions it would take to address pest control, bin management, and the condition of the neighbour’s garden. This included repairs, consideration of CCTV and signage, and conversations with her neighbour. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it would have been better if it provided timescales or a timetable for these issues to manage the resident’s expectations as it did with a fence repair.
  7. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in its stage 2 response of 4 April 2024 and it offered the resident £250 compensation for its recognised failings. This was in keeping with its compensation guidance which says it may offer financial compensation if it does not meet its published service standards. It also says it offers up to £250 for significant complaint handling failings which is its highest award. The landlord’s offer was in keeping with our remedies guidance and was reasonable redress to put right any detriment its poor complaint handling may have caused the resident.
  8. The resident raised further complaints about the landlord’s handling of the fence repairs it promised in its stage 2 response. However, it did not send a stage 2 response after it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 13 May 2024. This caused the resident further time and trouble chasing the stage 2 response on 29 May 2024. There is no evidence it provided a stage 2 response to the resident which was not in keeping with the Code and was a further failing.
  9. On 26 June 2024, the landlord reopened – and arranged to review – its stage 2 response of 4 April 2024. This was in response to contact from us, an EHO, and the resident who said it had not kept to its stage 2 commitments. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy in use at the time which says it may review other information and provide a final response to explain the landlord’s position if a resident was still unhappy following its Stage 2 response.
  10. The landlord sent its follow-on stage 2 response to the resident on 2 July 2024. It bought matters up to date by referring to the EHO and clarifying its pest control responsibilities. This was positive. It awarded the resident a further £250 compensation for any time, trouble, and inconvenience its poor communication and delays may have caused. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
  11. The landlord also offered the resident £100 as compensation for the future impact of its pest control repairs. The landlord’s approach was resolution-focused but it could not foresee the impact of its future handling of matters. Therefore, it could not be confident its award was proportionate to any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the resident might have incurred.
  12. The resident raised a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of pest issues and its earlier stage 2 commitments on 13 September 2024. It acknowledged and replied to the complaint on time. It also appropriately summarised the reasons it registered the complaint at stage 1 in keeping with the Code which was positive. However, it did not fully instigate the resident’s complaint about its failure to keep to its stage 2 promises. Instead, it said it was monitoring these promises and it offered the resident £50 for poor communication. The response did not fully address the resident’s complaint and led to her escalating the complaint later the same day.
  13. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 25 September 2024, until 1 November 2024. This was 8 working days later than the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy target timescale. It provided appropriate information about why it raised the complaint under a new complaint reference in keeping with the Code. The landlord summarised its handling of the pest control issues and a drain repair. It also explained the actions it would take to address the neighbour’s garden and her refuse management concerns. However, it did not refer to the environmental health notice which was a missed opportunity to fully update the resident about her complaint. The landlord increased its offer of compensation for poor communication to £150 which it was entitled to do in keeping with its compensation guidance and in recognition of its further service failures.
  14. The landlord offered the resident a total of £400 as compensation for its poor complaint handling (£250 on 4 April 2024 and £150 on 1 November 2024). This was in line with our remedies guidance where there were failings that affected the resident. Its compensation was proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its failures.
  15. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which resolves the complaint handling failings satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. We have recommended the landlord pays this to the resident if it has not already done so.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s pest concerns.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of her pest concerns.
    2. Pay the resident the £750 compensation offered in its earlier complaint responses for its handling of pest concerns if it has not already.
    3. Pay the resident an added £250 in compensation for any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its handling of her pest concerns caused.
    4. Inspect the loft of the property to assess if it needs any repairs following the pest infestations. If it does, the landlord should send the resident and us details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of its inspection.
    5. Review the bin storage next to the property with a view to reducing potential pest infestations.
    6. Consider what action it can take to combat fly tipping in the car park including signage and CCTV (as set out in its stage 2 response of April 2024).

The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £400 compensation it offered in its earlier complaint responses for poor complaint handling if it has not already.