Midland Heart Limited (202311065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311065

Midland Heart Limited

26 September 2025

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of pests in the property.
2. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom property. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is a carer for their family, had depression, and has a child that lives in the property. The child has tracheomalacia.
The resident reported an infestation of maggots and flies on 9 July 2021. They explained to the landlord it had been ongoing for 3 years and it was a recurring issue. The resident reported ASB from their neighbour on 10 November 2021, including fights in the streets, arguments, and drug dealing.
The resident continued to raise issues about ASB and pests in 2022 and into 2023. In that time the landlord contacted Environmental Health to gather insight into the source of the pests. It had risk assessed and arranged action plans for the reports of ASB. It also arranged a third-party patrol service, sent warning letters to the neighbour, and coordinated with the police about the issues.
On 28 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the pest issue had been ongoing for 4 years. They said they had not been kept up to date and had replaced their flooring 3 times to remedy the issue. They also said they were unhappy with the time it had taken for the landlord to arrange an injunction against their neighbour about ASB.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 22 September 2023. It said it had found it difficult sourcing engineers to investigate the pests. However, it would carry out soil tests, a drain survey, and radar survey. In response to the resident’s ASB concerns, it said it had kept in regular contact with them about it. It explained it did not find service failure with its handling of pests, ASB and the complaint.
On 13 November 2023 the resident escalated their complaint about ASB and the pests. The landlord sent a further stage 1 response about ASB on 5 December 2023 as it said it had not “appropriately investigated” it. It apologised there was not an assigned case manager prior to December 2021. It said it had kept the resident updated since that time, and that there was delay in arranging an injunction. It apologised and offered £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused for the delay to progress the ASB case to court.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord sent a stage 2 response about the pests. It said it had considered sourcing soil samples, consulted with pest control and Environmental Health and arranged a drainage survey to find the source of the pests. It agreed it took too long to escalate the issue.
The landlord offered £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the pest issue and £170 for its complaint handling. It also signposted the resident to financial support and to its insurers for the resident’s concerns about the impact on the household.
The resident told us in September 2024 and September 2025 that their complaint is that the pest issue had been unresolved and the cost to remedy this financially affected them. They said the landlord did not handle the ASB, which caused distress to them and psychological damage to their child. They do not accept the compensation and want the landlord to consider the impact on the household. They want the issues resolved and help in the interim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident referred to the impact the ASB had on their health and their child’s health. We are unable to find if a landlord’s actions or inaction had impacted someone’s health. These matters are likely better suited for a court, or a personal injury or insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this further, they can seek independent advice. However, where we have identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Pests in the property

The resident reported a pest infestation of maggots and flies on 9 July 2021.
The landlord’s pest guide says it will intervene with pests at a property. It will:
1. provide information and advice to the resident to manage pests in the home.
2. question the resident to identify the root cause of the pests.
3. inspect the condition of the property and nearby area for any signs of pests.
4. provide the resident the next steps to remedy the pests.
5. arrange a pest controller to investigate within 7 working days and it will provide a copy of the report and action plan within 48 hours.
Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report sets out recommendations about landlords’ record keeping. This includes keeping clear records, monitoring progress with third parties, and updating residents on progress on issues it’s investigating within a reasonable timescale.
Accurate record keeping helps landlords meet their obligations, including providing information to residents and to us to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, some of the records were unclear as they were undated, and the landlord said some were from a third-party messaging service that were no longer accessible. Its poor record keeping made it difficult to determine if its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord said the resident raised further issues with pests in September 2022. It said it arranged a pest controller. It was appropriate to arrange a pest inspection. However, there is no record of the resident’s report and what actions and recommendations were made by the pest controller. It would have been reasonable to keep up to date records to assess what it may have needed to do to mitigate the pests, what next steps it may have needed to take, and to keep the resident updated in the interim. That it did not, was unreasonable.
The lack of evidence has made it difficult to understand if the landlord responded to the report of pests at the property and arranged to inspect within the times set out in its pest guide. We therefore cannot say if the landlord adhered to its pest guide, and whether there were missed opportunities to arrange alternative inspections to understand what steps it could take to mitigate the pests. This was inappropriate and a failure of its record keeping.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord contacted the Environmental Health Team (EHT). The EHT said it would support removing the pests once the source was found. It recommended the landlord arranged a pest inspector to investigate the issue and complete a drainage survey. It provided contact details for an entomologist (insect expert) that may be able to help.
There is no evidence the landlord followed up the EHT’s recommendations around this time. This delayed an investigation to determine the source of the pests and any long-term and temporary recommendations to remedy it. This was inappropriate and not in line with its pest guide.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 January 2023 and explained it was considering testing the soil at the property. It was appropriate to consider further ways to find the source of the pests. However, the delay to update the resident about the actions it was considering was unreasonable and left the household to endure the issue and without assurance it was being investigated.
On 28 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the pest issue had been ongoing for 4 years, they had not been kept updated and had to replace their flooring 3 times in attempt to prevent the pests.
On 13 March and 27 March 2023 the landlord updated the resident that the EHT said as there was no source for the pests, it could not take further action. The landlord said it was corresponding with the entomologist and reviewing the rainwater and sewerage plans, to see if the source could be found. It was appropriate to update the resident about the actions it was taking to better understand the source of the pests in attempt to remedy the issue.
The landlord updated the resident on 26 April 2023 that its senior management instructed that soil tests take place and for the pipes to be surveyed to source the pests. It was appropriate to continue investigating the source of the pests. However, surveying the pipes was approved 6 months after it was recommended by EHT. The delay to investigate the issue was unreasonable.
On 12 June 2023 the resident provided the landlord evidence of pests in the property. The local authority contacted the landlord the same day to explain it had received a complaint from the resident about pests.
The landlord arranged a visit to the property and surrounding area on 14 June 2023 and found bulky items left outside some properties. It had taken 8 months to visit the property and area from when the recurrence of pests was reported in September 2022. This was inappropriate and not in line with its pest guide.
On 7 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update. It responded that it was trying to test the soil and that it found the pests was a wider issue in the community. The lack of proactive updates was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident.
On 16 August 2023 the EHT shared with the landlord that it had found the pests were bottleflies and that a source had not been found. It continued to recommend that the landlord tests the soil. There is no evidence the landlord had tested the soil by this time. This delay was unreasonable.
The landlord updated the resident about the pest issue on 25 August 2023. This was appropriate.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord explained to the resident, as part of its complaint response, that it consulted engineers to test the soil and attempted to find a pest inspector, however it had not successfully done so. It was arranging a drain survey to detect any contributing factors to the pests and considering a radar survey to better understand the underground features.
It was appropriate the landlord shared with the resident that it tried to find engineers to test the soil, and it tried to find a pest inspector. However, there is no evidence of these attempts and whether it had continued its search for an inspector to remedy the issue. It had delayed carrying out further investigations into the issue. This was inappropriate and not in line with its pest guide.
On 10 October 2023 a survey of the drains found no structural defects. This was reasonable to investigate and rule out as a possible factor of the source of the pests. However, it had taken over a year to do so since it was first recommended by EHT. The delay was unreasonable.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord explained as part of its final complaint response that it had reviewed the property developer’s 2016 ground investigation report. It found no issues with the land in 2016. It was appropriate to investigate existing assessments in attempt to understand the source of the pests. However, this was 14 months after the recurrence of pests was reported. The delay to take this action was unreasonable.
The landlord said it had taken appropriate actions, and it would liaise with EHT to test the soil. However, it said it had taken too long to escalate the issue internally and investigate the pests. It offered £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to see if its redress had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we take into account whether its offer and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord had acknowledged the delay to investigate the pests and offered £750 compensation, which is in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for failures that have had a significant impact on the resident. However, it had not:
1. set out the lessons it had learnt from this to prevent delays in the future.
2. recognised its inaction to ensure it found a suitably qualified pest inspector in attempt to remedy the pests and record its attempts to do so.
3. consistently updated the resident throughout their pest reports.
Considering this we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pests.
The landlord should reoffer the resident £750 if it has not evidenced this has been paid already. This was in line with what we would have ordered, but there are other steps needed to put things right for the resident.
The landlord should apologise and set out its learnings to the resident. It should ensure it sources a suitably qualified pest inspector to investigate the property, record its findings and action its recommendations. It should set out any interim measures it will put in place to alleviate the housing condition and impact on the household.
The landlord should set out a plan as to when it will complete any actions recommended by the pest inspector and confirm if it will act on previous investigations it was considering, including soil testing and a radar survey.
In correspondence with us the resident said they installed membrane and artificial grass in the garden as well as replacing their flooring 3 times in attempt to remedy the pests. The landlord should consider its compensation policy and set out a response to the resident about this.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The resident reported ASB from their neighbour on 10 November 2021, including fights in the streets, arguments, and alleged drug dealing.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. it will risk assess the ASB to understand its priority and what advice and assistance it can provide.
2. high priority ASB is where its targeted at an individual or group, rather than the community and it will agree timescales to update the resident.
3. it will encourage the people involved to address their behaviour.
4. it will close the case once the issues have been resolved and the landlord had taken all available action to resolve the matter.
The landlord will use non-legal and legal interventions in attempt to remedy the ASB. These include a named staff member to manage the case, action plans, interviews, advisory letters and warning letters, good neighbour agreements, agency referrals for support, alternative accommodation, and injunctions.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day. It risk-assessed the report as “high”, set out an action plan, arranged a third-party patrol service the resident could contact when ASB occurs, and sent a warning letter to the neighbour. It advised the resident it would call in 2 weeks with a case officer and, in the meantime, to continue gathering evidence and police reports. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The resident continued to report ASB to the landlord and use the patrol service. On 20 December 2021 the resident explained they could not use the patrol service on the previous weekend as they had not been provided an updated password.
The landlord apologised for its lack of contact as the case manager had left. It agreed to send an action plan to the resident on 5 January 2022. It was appropriate to arrange a follow-up with the resident. However, it had not responded to them within the previously agreed time, and it had not updated them with the new password to use the patrol service. This was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2022. It said it had extended the patrol service, provided the password, and asked for evidence of reported ASB. It visited the resident on 25 January 2022 to review the evidence. The next day it sent a letter to the neighbourhood about drug allegations it was investigating. It sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 28 January 2022. These actions were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord continued to keep in contact with the resident about further ASB from their neighbours approximately every 2 to 4 weeks. It gathered evidence for possible legal action, extended the patrol service, agreed an acceptable behaviour contract with the neighbour, and contacted the police who agreed to patrol the neighbourhood more often.
The landlords continued updates, plan of action, and multi-agency approach showed its commitment to the seriousness of the ASB reports and its attempts to remedy it. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
On 25 August 2022 the resident explained they were anxious about their reports of ASB and the repercussions it could have. The landlord recommended the resident call the police when feeling unsafe. On 5 September 2022 the police confirmed it would send more patrols to the neighbourhood. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The resident reported ASB on 5 and 29 September 2022 from their neighbour. The landlord sent the neighbour another warning letter on 1 November 2022. This referred the neighbour to its acceptable behaviour contract and set out it was taking legal action against the tenancy. This was appropriate.
The landlord started an injunction application about the neighbour in January 2023. The resident complained on 28 February 2023 that it was taking too long to resolve the issue.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord updated the resident that the court approved an injunction application about the neighbour, and it asked the resident to continue reporting ASB. The landlord updated the action plan and sent it to the resident 13 April 2023. It explained it was reviewing ASB evidence the resident provided for its legal team. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The resident reported ASB on 13 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day and on 24 April 2023 it contacted the police to request neighbourhood checks. It updated the action plan on 27 April and 11 May 2023. It visited the resident on 25 May 2023 and confirmed it was reviewing the recordings provided by the resident. These actions were appropriate.
The resident explained to the landlord on 1 August 2023 that they were not sleeping well, were worried about their neighbour, expressed concerns about their own wellbeing, and questioned whether they could move.
The landlord responded on the same day. It said its legal team were reviewing the ASB and it was seeking a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) about their neighbour. It referred the resident to their doctor and signposted them to its website where properties are advertised on a first come, first serve basis. It also said they could register with the local authority for housing. It was appropriate to update the resident, signpost to support for their wellbeing, and set out housing options available.
The resident provided evidence of ASB on 7 August 2023. On 29 August 2023 a warning letter was sent to the neighbour. The landlord updated the resident on 4 September, 5 October, 26 October and 16 November 2023 with an updated action plan, it explained it was assessing the evidence and was seeking a NOSP. This was appropriate and in line with ASB policy.
The landlord updated the resident on 7 December that the neighbour was due in court on 22 December 2023. This was appropriate to update the resident.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 11 December 2023. In its complaint responses, it said it delayed initially assigning a manager to the case, progressing the ASB to court and delayed possession proceedings against the neighbour. It offered £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the delays.
Since the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, the neighbour was evicted from the property on 29 February 2024. The landlord assured the resident of this and that the locks had been changed.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether its offer of redress and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is clear the landlord accepted its failings. It set out why these failings happened, and what it had done to learn from this including internal feedback and training. Our remedies guidance sets out that an amount above £1,000 recognises failings that had a serious detrimental impact on the household. Its offer of £1,200 is reasonable, in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
Considering the above, we find that the landlord has provided reasonable redress within its internal complaint procedure for the ASB.
The finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding the landlord’s offer of £1,200 is paid to the resident, if not already paid.

The associated complaint

Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it.
2. respond to all complaint issues within 10 working days of logging it.
3. if the resident escalates the complaint to stage 2, the landlord should provide its response within 20 working days of the escalation.
4. do not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through the stages.
5. reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be set out in its complaint policy.
The landlord’s complaint policy is aligned with the Code. Its complaint policy sets out that it would not accept or escalate a complaint for various reasons, including the complaint event having occurred over 12 months ago, it already having exhausted its complaint policy, and under its own discretion where its reasonable.
The resident made their complaint about pests and ASB on 28 February 2023. There is no evidence it acknowledged the complaint. The resident contacted us on 27 June 2023 about the pest element of the complaint, and we contacted the landlord about this on 7 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 September 2023, which said it had found no service failures in its response to pests, ASB, and its complaint handling.
The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint and provided its stage 1 response 7 months late. This was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
On 13 November 2023 the resident escalated the complaint about pests and ASB. The landlord provided a new stage 1 response about ASB on 5 December 2023 and sent a stage 2 response about pests on 11 December 2023.
In the landlord’s efforts to resolve the resident’s concerns it prevented reasonable escalation of the ASB complaint. It said it started a new stage 1 ASB response as the original did not “appropriately address” the ASB concerns. However, this is not a specific reason set out in its complaint policy. And although it may have applied discretion to make this decision, it was not reasonable to delay the escalation when it had already provided a response at stage 1. This could have caused confusion and could have prevented the resident from pursuing the case further. This was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it recognised its complaint handling failures. It said it delayed its response to the complaint, it had not acknowledged it, and it had not appropriately addressed the ASB element in the first stage 1 response. It offered £270 for the distress and inconvenience caused for this.
Considering the above, we find that the landlord has provided reasonable redress within its internal complaint procedure for its handling of the complaint.
The finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding the landlord’s offer of £270 is paid to the resident, if not already paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days the landlord should:
1. arrange a suitably qualified pest inspector to investigate the property and share its findings with us and the resident.
2. write to the resident:
  1. to apologise for the failures set out in this report and its learnings from this to prevent it happening again in the future.
  2. with an action plan that sets out how and when it will action any of the pest inspection recommendations.
  3. to confirm its position on the soil test and radar survey, as it had previously informed the resident.
  4. to set out any interim measures it will take to alleviate the housing condition and impact on the household.
  5. pay the resident £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the pest issue, if it is not evidenced this has been paid already.
  6. set out a response to the residents’ concerns, in line with its compensation policy, that they replaced their floor 3 times and replaced the grass in the garden in attempt to remedy the pest issue.

(1) if it does not offer compensation, it should explain why and set out details to the resident of its liability insurance if required.

Recommendations

Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord:
1. makes payment to the resident of:
  1. £1,200 for its handling of ASB, if it is not evidenced this has been paid already.
  2. £270 for its handling of the complaint, if it is not evidenced this has been paid already.