Moat Homes Limited (202344850)

Background

1. The resident lives with her children, including a newborn. She reported a silverfish infestation and later saw a rat in her living room. She complained about the landlord’s handling of pest control, feeling the issue wasn’t resolved. She brought the complaint to us seeking accountability from the landlord, a pest-free home, and compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her home.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her home.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of pest control

5. When completing repairs to prevent entry of pests to the resident’s home the landlord did not follow the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It also failed to keep an assurance it made to let the resident know whether it could provide financial assistance with replacing damaged furniture.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord followed its complaints policy in dealing with the resident’s complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

7. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, she reported several repairs that she wanted the landlord to complete in her home. These repairs were unrelated to the pest control issue she raised at stage 1. Although the landlord provided an update on these repairs in its stage 2 response it did not include them within its complaint investigation. As the landlord has not had fair opportunity to investigate those repair issues we have not considered them as part of our investigation. If the resident remains unhappy about any repair issues not related to her pest control complaint she should raise a new complaint with the landlord.

What we have looked at

8. The resident reported that she had seen silverfish in her home on 28 September 2023. The landlord tried to call her the same day to discuss the issue but the call was unsuccessful. The resident chased it up again on 24 November 2023. She asked to delay pest control until after giving birth, as she did not want to be home during the treatment. The landlord responded to her on 6 December 2023 and asked her to contact it when she was ready. Although the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports, taking the resident’s circumstances into account its approach was reasonable.
9. When the resident called the landlord to report she had seen a rat on 8 January 2024 she also mentioned that the silverfish in her home remained. The landlord does not have a pest control policy but its website assures resident’s it will assist them to find a solution where they identify pests. It followed through with this assistance when it arranged a pest control inspection.
10. The landlord identified evidence of rats during its first appointment on 18 January 2024 and laid bait. It also set up insect monitoring boards. After its first appointment it agreed to move the resident to a hotel because the type of bait it had used was not suitable for her newborn baby or pet dog. This showed the landlord appreciated the resident’s circumstances.
11. The landlord completed 2 pest control appointments on 24 and 26 January 2024. It identified a potential access point behind a radiator which it would need to remove to carry out repairs. In the final visit it found no evidence of bait consumption or silverfish. It removed the bait and the insect boards. The landlord’s approach was reasonable.
12. The landlord completed a home visit on 31 January 2024. The resident asked the landlord to look in an area where she thought silverfish would be. The landlord checked and found evidence of silverfish. The resident said she did not have confidence in its pest control and did not want to return home with her newborn baby. The landlord showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously when it agreed to extend her hotel stay and complete further pest control.
13. The landlord completed further pest control on 1 and 5 February 2024. This included filling in holes under the kitchen units, spraying insecticide, laying further bait and traps. The landlord also cleaned areas, disposed of contaminated items and disinfected. Ahead of its stage 1 response the landlord completed a final pest control inspection where it found no evidence of pest activity. It removed the bait and traps. Other than the outstanding proofing works behind the bathroom radiator the landlord’s treatment of the pests was appropriate and in line with the best practice guidance on our website. We expect landlords to complete timely inspections of homes and take resident’s concerns seriously. Where landlord’s identify the need to complete repairs relating to pest control these should be completed in line with their repairs policies.
14. The landlord did not go far enough in addressing the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response. As she was concerned about the potential of rats returning to her home it was not reasonable that it did not give her certainty on completing the proofing works. Under its repairs policy it should complete non-emergency repairs within 21 calendar days. At the time it sent its response it had been 28 days since it identified the need to remove the radiators to fill in a hole on 24 January 2024. It did not complete this repair until 22 March 2024, this was not in line with the time allowed by its repairs policy. Given the resident did not want to move back in until she was satisfied the landlord had solved the issue this delay added further distress and inconvenience to her. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated about its arrangement of a deep clean and request for financial support.
15. The landlord went some way to putting things right at stage 2. It completed another pest control inspection and found no evidence of pest activity. It also agreed to clear the discarded items from resident’s garden as a gesture of goodwill and to sanitise her home (it completed both commitments on 5 June 2024). It missed an opportunity to acknowledge its delay in proofing her home when it told her it would not award her compensation because it was satisfied it had followed its policies. It also repeated that it would look into whether it could assist with funding to replace her furniture. Again, it did not complete that assurance and the resident had to chase it up in October 2024. It appears the reason the landlord had not updated her was due to a staff member leaving its employment. The landlord considered her request in October 2024 and told her she did not qualify.
16. The landlord’s response to pest control was reasonable. It took the resident’s reports seriously. It completed several inspections and took action. However, there were some failings in its handling of repairs and its communication. The landlord did not comply with the timescales set out in its repairs policy when it proofed her home. It also failed to keep her updated about providing financial assistance for replacing her furniture. Although the resident did not qualify for financial assistance this caused her inconvenience because it left her uncertain for over 5 months.  For those reasons, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in her home.
17. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. That figure is in line with the service failure banding of our remedies guidance.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition.. Our findings are:
    1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a published complaints policy that was compliant with the Code.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on the day it received it. It provided its response after 9 working days. This was in line with the Code which allows 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint and 10 working days to provide a stage 1 response.
    3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint the same day as she asked to escalate her complaint, 14 March 2024. It provided its stage 2 response after 20 working days, 15 April 2025. This was in line with the 20 working days allowed by the Code for responding to stage 2 complaints.
19. As the landlord adhered the Code and its own complaints policy there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in this case.

Communication

21. The landlord failed to follow through on its promise to contact the resident about financial support, likely due to staff turnover. It should consider measures to track outstanding actions when employees leave.