54 North Homes Limited (202502900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202502900

54 North Homes Limited

30 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 response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in 2024. The landlord records that she has vulnerabilities related to her mental health.
On 27 and 30 January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to report that there were either “termites” or “plaster bugs” in her home. She said she was worried that they could go inside her baby’s ears or mouth and asked if she could move to another property. The landlord inspected the property on 3 February 2025 and confirmed the presence of booklice. It recommended fumigation to eradicate the pests.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 February 2025 about an “infestation” in her property and the landlord’s delay in addressing it. She stated that her property suffered from “persistent damp issues”. She added that she wanted the landlord to carry out a “full professional clean” after the fumigation. She also wanted it to pay compensation for its delay in addressing “the ongoing safety issues” and relocate her to a detached property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 February 2025 and replied to the resident on 5 March 2025. It apologised its service had not been “up to standard” and confirmed it had arranged for the fumigation to take place on 5 March 2025. It said it would move the resident to temporary accommodation for 7 days while the work took place, and arrange for a “sparkle clean” after the fumigation. It added that its surveyor had attended the property on 27 February 2025 and found no evidence of damp.
The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2025 because:
1. The landlord had not carried out a detailed inspection to establish the cause of the infestation. She wanted an “independent specialist” to investigate the issue.
2. Neither the landlord nor contractor were present while the removal company were packing her belongings.
3. She believed the communication from the landlord was poor. Her temporary move did not appear to be well-planned, and it had not given her the key safe code for her temporary accommodation until “the last minute”.
In a further complaint from the resident on 28 March 2025, after returning to the property, she explained that:
1. No cleaning had taken place after the fumigation.
2. The air remained contaminated with chemicals.
3. Her daughter’s health had been impacted. She could not sleep properly due to the contamination. The resident asserted that her own health had also be compromised.
4. Several additional costs had now been incurred.
The resident advised the landlord that in resolution of her complaint, she wanted to be rehoused and her belongs transferred to the new property at the landlord’s expense. She also wanted to be compensated and reimbursed for her costs.
The landlord sent a final response to the resident on 9 April 2025. It upheld the complaint and stated that it:
1. Had agreed to rehouse her and would support her to find a suitable property in her preferred location. It would also arrange for her belongings to be safely relocated to the new property.
2. Agreed it should reimburse her for damaged belongings and asked her to send receipts.
On 16 June 2025 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She stated that she could not stay in her home because it was “thoroughly infested by mites”. She added that she wanted the landlord to pack her belongings, re-fumigate the property and then replace her carpet.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told the landlord that the “ineffective fumigation” had “severely” affected her health. She also referred to the impact of the fumigation on her daughter. The severity of this issue has been acknowledged, and we do not dispute the resident’s comments.
In our view, however, it would be more appropriate and effective to pursue any disputes about personal injury or illness via the courts. This is because where necessary, independent medical experts can be appointed to give evidence and determine causation. The resident should subsequently seek legal advice or make a personal injury claim if she wishes to seek compensation for any alleged impact.
We have, nevertheless, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property

The landlord has a pest control policy. It states that it will:
1. Carry out suitable repairs to prevent further infestations where it has a legal responsibility to do so.
2. Obtain advice from a pest control expert before carrying out any works.
3. Investigate any report of infestations such as rats, mice, cockroaches and Pharoah ants, which may be considered a statutory nuisance within the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The same policy states that the landlord will support people with vulnerabilities to deliver its service and will work alongside external agencies such as social services. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that it will aim to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord responded appropriately when the resident reported pests in her property on 27 and 30 January 2025. It arranged for its pest contractor to attend and inspect the property on 3 February 2025, 7 days after the resident’s initial report. The contractor established that the pests were booklice, which were hatching in the walls of the new build property during the “drying out process”. It recommended using a specialist pesticide ‘smoke bomb’ to eradicate the problem.
There is evidence the pest contractor had discussed the fumigation process with the resident. Furthermore, the landlord told the resident it had sought advice from the manufacturer of the smoke bomb. It reassured her on 20 February 2025 about the safety of the process and stated that people could safely re-enter a building shortly after treatment. This was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by:
1. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation. The contractor recommended it was safe for the resident to return to her property after 3 days. Despite this, the landlord organised for the resident to stay in temporary accommodation for 7 days to help alleviate her anxiety around health and safety.
2. Carrying out a risk assessment of the smoke bomb prior to releasing it.
3. Organising and covering the cost of the packing and removal of the resident’s belongings prior to the treatment.
4. Referring the resident to her local adult social care services on 28 February 2025 for additional support.
5. Arranging for a different pest specialist to inspect the property, as the resident’s request. The contractor visited 3 times between 2 May and 30 June to investigate whether there was an ongoing infestation following the fumigation works. The specialist found no further pest activity.
6. Acknowledging the resident’s continued anxiety about pests in her property, and the safety of her baby. It agreed to rehouse her and make 3 direct offers of alternative suitable properties.
7. Offering to cover the cost of any damaged belongings subject to the resident providing receipts. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord also agreed to reimburse the resident for:
  1. The cost of further professional cleaning of the property.
  2. Higher water and electricity costs.
  3. The purchase of air purification products.
We note there was a delay in carrying out the fumigation works, which had originally been arranged to take place on 20 February 2025. The records indicate these had to be rescheduled for 6 March 2025 because the landlord had not been able to find temporary accommodation by that date.
The landlord has not provided any records relating to the actions it took to source temporary accommodation. The reasons for the delay are therefore unclear. However, it has acknowledged it could have handled this process more appropriately. Failure to do so meant the resident had to wait for a month after the inspection for the treatment to take place. Given her concerns around the safety of her baby and her vulnerabilities, this would likely have prolonged the resident’s discomfort and anxiety. That she had to live in a property affected by booklice for longer than necessary was a service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
1. acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging it.
3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging it.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within the above timescales. This was in line with its complaints policy.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident raised a number of issues. These related to the cause of the infestation and problems she had encountered prior to her move into temporary accommodation. She also stated that the landlord had not cleaned the property after the fumigation. The landlord failed to address these matters in its response, and there is no evidence it had taken any steps to investigate them. Instead it told the resident it had agreed to offer her a direct offer of alternative accommodation and reimburse her for damaged belongings.
We acknowledge the landlord was making reasonable efforts to resolve the complaint by offering the resident alternative accommodation. However, it ought to still have provided a thorough response and addressed all the concerns she had raised in her complaint. That it did not do so was a departure from the Code. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should be made in writing and by a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £150 calculated as:
  1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing fumigation of the property.
  2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by an inadequate stage 2 response.

Recommendations

The landlord should continue to work with the resident to find suitable accommodation if it hasn’t already.
The landlord to reimburse the resident for her costs once she has provided her receipts, as it had agreed to and if it has not done so already.