Octavia Housing (202333385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333385

Octavia Housing

27 March 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:
1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident has arthritis, anxiety, and depression.
On 27 November 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. She had a mice infestation for 6 years and the landlord’s appointed pest control contractor had not been able to find the entry points.
2. For the first time, she had seen a rat in her home.
3. She had reported the rat problem to it and was unhappy that it told her she was responsible for pest control services. The resident advised she could not afford this.
4. She was concerned for her family’s health and she had been staying with relatives because the situation was impacting her mental health.
In the stage 1 response, dated 21 February 2024, the landlord said the resident was usually responsible for instructing pest control services. However, it had agreed to appoint its contractor prior to the response because of the resident’s financial circumstances. The landlord advised that its contractor laid bait, investigated points of entry, and returned several times between January and February 2024. It said there was no evidence of pest activity.
The resident escalated her complaint a few days later. She said she disagreed with the contractor’s account. She said she was advised by the contractor it was waiting for approval from the landlord for access to investigate entry points in her kitchen.
Initially the landlord responded informally in March 2024, at which time it acknowledged there was a failing in communication between it and the contractor. It awarded £250 compensation, confirmed proofing works had been completed, and advised it would continue to monitor the situation. However, the resident reported that she was still experiencing an infestation and that the compensation awarded was insufficient.
In the stage 2 response, dated 17 April 2024, the landlord said it had appointed a different contractor to investigate the resident’s ongoing reports. It advised its new contractor recommended investigations of the drains, additional proofing works, and alternative treatment. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the infestation. It offered £500 compensation and £250 for a delay in responding to the complaint.
After the complaints process ended, the contractor completed the proposed works in May 2024. The resident then reported a recurrence of the mice problem in August 2024. As such, the contractors were reappointed to complete further investigations which led to more proofing works and ongoing surveillance.
The resident said she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because the infestation reoccurred. She advised that she has been caused significant distress and worry, and a deterioration in her mental health. She is seeking the landlord to provide a permanent solution to the infestation and to compensate her further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The available evidence shows that the resident has experienced a reoccurring mice problem since 2016. We recognise this must have been incredibly distressing for the resident. There are, however, timescales for when the Ombudsman may investigate issues. This is usually no longer than 12 months after the events arose. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time limited investigations to looking at issues occurring in the previous 6 months. Time limits are necessary because the quality and availability of evidence can deteriorate over time. However, the Ombudsman does have discretion to investigate matters outside of the usual time limits where appropriate.
In this case, our investigation will look at relevant events in the 2 years leading up to the resident’s complaint until the stage 2 response in April 2024. The reason for this is because it is necessary to consider the landlord’s earlier responses to decide if its subsequent actions were appropriate. Where we go beyond this period is to provide context to the issues complained about and to consider if the landlord has fulfilled actions it agreed to address any failings it has identified.
The resident told us that the infestation reoccurred after her complaint ended. She advised that she informed the landlord that her belongings had been damaged and was seeking compensation for them. We have seen the resident asked to make a second formal complaint about the more recent occurrence in September 2024. The landlord advised it would not escalate a complaint because it was connected to the earlier events. While the more recent events are linked, they were not part of the original complaint the resident referred to the Ombudsman. Her concerns relate to a new set of circumstances that occurred after the complaints process ended. The landlord should have investigated this complaint separately and is therefore asked to do so promptly following this investigation.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, highlighted the need for “landlords [to] keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so it can demonstrate that it has met its repair obligations. In practice, this means that a landlord should be able to evidence what repair issues were reported and when, what action it took and when, and whether any further works were required. In this case, the record’s the landlord provided did not include all this detail. While the gaps in the evidence made it more challenging for us to establish a timeline, it was not a barrier to us reaching an overall decision. We will highlight any gaps and, where appropriate, any other relevant evidence we have considered.

Infestation

According to the landlord’s pest control policy, tenants are generally responsible for dealing with pests/infestation. The policy states the landlord will only usually provide pest control services where it is found to be caused by a repair or maintenance issue. Its approach is in-line with that of the social housing sector and what we would expect.
In early 2022, the available repair logs show the landlord raised an instruction for its pest contractors to carry out proofing works in the kitchen. It subsequently instructed the contractors to attend to a mice problem 3 times until March 2023. The available records do not confirm when the contractors attended and what works they undertook.
As explained earlier, the quality of the records is poor and not of the standard we would expect to see. The Ombudsman’s guidance for landlord’s on dealing with reports of pests states that record keeping is essential to demonstrate it has taken appropriate actions. These may include investigations for where pests are entering from, work to prevent them from getting in, and treatment (such as laying bait). Records are also essential to avoid repeating the same actions.
The evidence indicates that the landlord carried out proofing works aimed at stopping mice accessing the property. However, we do not know if its pest contractor carried out further or different actions at the next 3 attendances. The lack of detail in the records for this case means the landlord has not been able to evidence that it always responded appropriately in the months prior to the resident making a complaint. We will consider the implications of this later in the report.
When the resident complained in late-November 2023, she reported that the situation had deteriorated and that she had rats in her property. The resident advised that, prior to sending the email, she had been advised by the landlord that she was responsible for instructing pest control services.
We have not seen any records showing that the resident had reported the rat problem prior to her complaint. However, we accept that it is likely that she did because the landlord repeated in the stage 1 response that she was responsible for pest control services. This was not necessarily the case, as explained above. The landlord’s pest policy did not specify how it would decide who is responsible for dealing with the infestation. However, it was unreasonable in this case to put the onus on the resident to determine this, given the history of recurrent infestation. It was a failing, therefore, that it did not instruct its pest control services.
The landlord then repeated this failing by not responding to the resident’s complaint initially or to a further email she sent chasing a response on 20 December 2023. Its lack of action was not consistent with the landlord’s approach to customer care, as published on its website, to be “reliable, responsive and respectful” to its tenants. It was also a departure from the landlord’s complaints policy and The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), both of which required any “expression of dissatisfaction” escalated through the complaints process.
Further, the resident reported that she was not living at the property because of concerns about her health. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to explore this with the resident. For example, it could have completed a risk assessment. There is no evidence that it sought further information from the resident about this or sought to reassure her about the safety of her home. As such, the landlord failed to respond appropriately at an early stage.
On 4 January 2024, the landlord instructed its pest control services, who inspected the resident’s property the following day. This was 39 days after she reported the rat problem. The pest control policy states that the landlord will instruct a contractor to attend within 48 hours of a report, who will inspect within 15 days. The landlord therefore exceeded its policy timescales by 24 days. This delay and poor communication understandably caused the resident distress and added worry.
There was no acknowledgment of any failings in the stage 1 response, dated 21 February 2024. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge the communication failings, at the very least. There was also no demonstrable investigation, in the available records, beyond obtaining information from the pest contractors about its recent attendances. It did not reference any of the previous actions that had been taken to address the infestation.
Even if the landlord were strictly applying its 6-month timescale, it would have been reasonable to explain its approach. We have seen no evidence that it did. This was not in-line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code which required that each element of the complaint be clearly addressed and a decision given. The landlord again missed an opportunity to attempt to put things right at this initial stage.
The landlord relayed what actions the pest contractors advised they had undertaken. This was that they placed 5 bait stations downstairs at the first attendance. The pest contractors said that they re-attended on 19 January, 2 and 9 February 2024 and found no evidence of activity and no entry holes. It was reasonable for the landlord to use the information from its contractors to inform its decision. However, as explained, it would have also been reasonable to consider the previous actions, if only to provide context to the more recent events.
The resident advised on 26 February 2024, and in her complaint escalation on 6 March 2024, that the account was incorrect. She said that the contractor had told her they had asked the landlord to carry out work to look for access points. In a follow-up response on 19 March 2024, the landlord apologised that the findings were not reported by the pest contractor and for the delay this caused. It confirmed that the “kitchen works” had been completed on 7 March 2024 and a further inspection would be arranged.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the communication failing between it and its contractor. It was also appropriate to take action to put things right for the resident, including awarding compensation. The amount awarded was the highest its compensation policy said it could award for distress and inconvenience arising for a failing. This was a reasonable amount, based on what was known at the time. That the landlord issued a further response outside of its complaints process is something this report will comment on later.
The resident reported on 19 March 2024 that she still had an infestation, this time effecting her bedroom. She indicated that the contractor was the same who had been attending for the past 6 years and had not been able to find the entry points. In early-April 2024, the landlord appointed a different pest control contractor. Although it was not obliged to, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider taking different action than simply reappointing the same contractor given the resident’s ongoing concerns.
The second pest contractor inspected the property on 9 April 2024. They reported that they were unable to say if the proofing works or bait stations carried out by the previous contractor were done correctly. The contractors found evidence of bait being taken from boxes left by a different pest contractor instructed by the resident, but when this was is unknown. The contractor recommended several different actions to investigate for entry points and treat the infestation. This service notes that the quality of their records was of a higher standard than previously seen.
The landlord’s stage 2 response from mid-April 2024 said, in light of the further happenings since the initial response, it had authorised the works proposed by the second contractor. The landlord did not, however, acknowledge any additional failings in its final response. Rather, it recognised the resident had been caused distress and inconvenience from the ongoing situation. It said it had increased the compensation to £500 in recognition of the significant impact.
As explained earlier, the Code requires decisions to be clear and explained. In practice, this means we would expect a landlord to say whether it had identified service failings. However, in this case there was no conclusive evidence, that we have seen, that the reoccurrence of the infestation could be attributed to failings on the part of the landlord or its contractor. Given this, the landlord’s decision to award additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the situation, rather than for service failure, was reasonable.
In the circumstances, the landlord’s actions and explanations were reasonable. Its award was significantly above the level of compensation it states it would usually pay. It is also in-line with the level the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies would recommend for failings that have had a significant impact over a short to medium period, as was the case here. It also took a pragmatic approach in appointing a different pest contractor in view of the longstanding nature of the problem. It is disappointing that the further works that were undertaken have not resolved the situation. This itself is not an indication of a failing in the works or any previous actions taken. Nonetheless, the impact of the situation on the resident is clear and we encourage the landlord to continue to look for a solution.
While the landlord took some appropriate actions to put things right, its failure to investigate the resident’s concern that she was unable to live at the property was a lost opportunity. We have ordered it pay additional compensation to recognise this and have recommended it considers updating its policy.

Associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage formal complaints policy, which aligns with the standards set in the Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working-days. It then commits to respond at stage 1 within 10 working–days and 20 working–days at stage 2. If more time is needed, the policy states the timescale may be extended by up to 10 working-days. In such cases, the landlord will write to the resident to let them know.
Both stages were significantly delayed. At stage 1 the landlord exceeded its timescale by 76 working-days, and 22 working-days at stage 2. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord informed the resident of an extension. We have also seen no evidence it was keeping her updated. In fact, the evidence shows that the resident usually only received an update after having asked for one. This was clearly a departure of the required standards, including its customer care ethos to be “responsive and respectful”.
The landlord did, however, issue a further response on 19 March 2024, in between the first and second stages. This was from the original complaint handler. This was not in-line with its complaints process or the Code, both of which required the stage 2 to be investigated by a different member of staff. It also evidently caused the resident confusion, based on the available evidence. She had previously been sent confirmation that her complaint had been escalated and would be dealt with by a different person.
The Code sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures to enable a positive complaints culture across the social housing sector. It allows for some deviation in practice, but we would expect to see there was a clear benefit to the resident in doing so. While the further response did address some of the resident’s original concerns, it did not provide the independent review that the stage 2 allows for. Therefore, it was a failure in the handling of the complaint that possibly contributed to the delays the resident encountered.
While the initial response acknowledged no failings, the stage 2 response did recognise the delays in the complaints process. It apologised and awarded £250 compensation. These were appropriate actions to put things right. The amount awarded was proportionate, in our view, to reflect the impact in this case. The delay in responding to the complaint contributed to the delay in finding a solution to the substantive issues. This in turn caused the resident further distress. We are satisfied, therefore, that the landlord has taken reasonable actions to remedy its failings in the handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress which, in our view, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to show the Ombudsman evidence that it has completed the following actions:
1. Apologise to the resident for the communication failures and for not considering or acknowledging the full impact of the situation on her.
2. Pay the resident £850 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for the pest control failings.
  2. £250 for the complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation of £750 offered during the complaints process, this may be deducted leaving £100 to pay.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers updating its pest control policy to meet the expectations set in our guidance for landlords on the subject. This includes setting out an approach to determining responsibility for pest control and assessing if an infestation poses a health safety or safe-guarding concern.
The landlord should investigate the new issues raised in the resident’s second complaint from September 2024. It is not, however, required to revisit any events investigated in this report or that took place earlier.