Pinnacle Affordable Homes Ltd (202448524)

Decision
Case ID	202448524
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Pinnacle Affordable Homes Ltd
Landlord type	For profit
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	12 January 2026

Background

The resident has lived at the property with her 2 children, aged 16 and 6, since March 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has told us she has both physical and mental health conditions. Both her children are asthmatic. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident said the landlord has not dealt with the repairs, pest infestation, and damp and mould at the properly since she moved in.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks, damp, and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
2. Toilet repairs.
3. Pest infestation in the property and proofing works.
4. Loft hatch door and floorboard repair.
We will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of;
1. Leaks, damp, and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
2. Toilet repairs.
3. Pest infestation in the property and proofing works.
4. The associated complaint.
There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the loft hatch door and floorboard repair.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:

Leaks, damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs

Did not inspect the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe in April 2024. It then failed to monitor and track works when an employee left the business. There were delays when the landlord failed to take proactive steps to progress the works.

Leak from the toilet

Did not consider its decant policy when the resident was without a toilet for 6 days in May 2023. It also delayed in providing access to a temporary toilet.

Pest infestation and proofing works

Failed to check the water tank and complete proofing works in May 2024.

Repair to the loft hatch door and floorboard

Did not take proactive steps to progress the repair between 23 July 2024 and 18 October 2024. We also cannot be satisfied that it inspected the damaged floorboard.

Complaint handling

Failed to acknowledge any failures within its complaint responses. It failed to comply with the Complaint Handling Code which delayed the resident progressing her complaint. This delayed her accessing this Service. It failed to properly consider the resident’s request for compensation for personal items damaged by the pest. It also failed to give a full explanation of its reason not to move the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,250 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp, and mould. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the toilet repairs. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the loft and floorboard repair. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 09 February 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works set out in its 16 July 2025 inspection report are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 09 February 2026
4	The landlord must consider the resident’s request for compensation for damaged furniture and belongings again. It must ask the resident for evidence of any damaged items, as per its policy. It must then write to the resident to confirm whether it will compensate her for the items or not. It must provide a full explanation of its reasons.	No later than 09 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 January 2025	The resident complained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of pest control, its communication and its complaint handling.
5 February 2025	The resident complained about repairs to her property which had been ongoing since she moved in. This included pest control, an electrical repair, kitchen cabinet repairs, toilet and drain repairs. She had previously tried to escalate her complaints to stage 2. The landlord had refused and started the process again.
12 February 2025	The landlord sent a joint stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s complaints. The response referred to the landlord’s communication, damp and mould, pest infestation, toilet repairs, kitchen cabinet repairs, and electrical repairs. It did not uphold the complaint in relation to all issues apart from the electrical repairs. It should have completed this sooner and offered £70 compensation. It would complete a damp and mould appointment on 3 February 2025.
28 February 2025	The resident forwarded her 5 February 2025 email to us and asked us to help progress her complaint.
6 March 2025	The resident contacted us again to outline the issues which had affected her. This included pest infestation, leaks from the toilet and a kitchen pipe, damp and mould in the property, and a loft hatch repair which damaged a floorboard.
25 March 2025	We asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. We said it should provide a stage 2 response by 1 May 2025.
4 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it was raising the complaint as a stage 1 instead of a stage 2. This was because the resident had sent the complaint outside its 20-day timescale for her to escalate the complaint.
8 May 2025	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had completed all the repairs the resident had requested, save for the damp and mould works. It said it would complete the works when the resident allowed access to the property.
9 June 2025	Following further contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
2 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed it was satisfied with its response at stage 1 in relation to the pest infestation, leaks from the toilet and kitchen pipe, and damp and mould. It did not provide a response to the loft hatch door repair and floorboard.
Events after stage 2	The landlord continued to try and arrange the damp and mould works and other repairs after stage 2. It decanted the resident in August 2025 and completed some repairs. In November 2025 it served the resident with a notice seeking possession of property. This was due to her not allowing access for the landlord to complete repairs. It was also because of the resident’s conduct towards employees and contractors.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to move her. She also said she wanted compensation for the pain, suffering, and inconvenience caused.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we won’t look at

The resident told us the damp and mould and the landlord’s handling of the issues affected hers and her family’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
When the resident brought the complaint to us, she told us about the decant and repairs which took place after the stage 2 complaint response. We have looked at everything up to 2 July 2025. Any problems that happened after this date, and have not been raised in a formal complaint, should be taken up with the landlord as a new complaint if needed.

What we will look at

The Ombudsman usually doesn’t investigate complaints which are over 12 months. The resident has told us she made previous complaints to the landlord about the repairs in her property. She has tried to escalate these complaints to stage 2. None of the previous complaints have completed the complaint procedure. We asked the landlord to escalate the February 2025 complaint to stage 2. The landlord decided not to do this. We can see the landlord has been aware of the repairs issues in the resident’s property from at least April 2023 and started dealing with them then. So, we’ve decided it’s fair to look at how the landlord responded from April 2023 up to July 2025, when it sent its stage 2 response.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards such as damp and mould. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
On 25 March 2024 the resident reported a leak into her kitchen from a pipe in the ceiling. The landlord attended on the same date. The notes show the resident provided video evidence of water running down the wall. The contractor checked the boiler, toilet, and under the bath. There was no evidence of a leak. This attendance was inline with the landlord’s repair policy which says it will attend to emergency repairs for an uncontainable leak from internal pipework within 24 hours.
The resident reported black mould and fungus in her kitchen on 17 April 2024. The landlord inspected on 28 May 2024. We have not seen the landlord’s damp and mould policy prior to its 16 May 2024 policy or know if there was one. Its May 2024 policy does not have any timescales for when the landlord will inspect. However, we would not consider 41 days (17 April 2024 to 28 May 2024) to be reasonable. It should have inspected sooner.
The landlord found evidence of localised condensation in the kitchen and mould in the kitchen cupboards. There were no visible signs of mould in the bathroom. This was due to the resident recently repainting and re-tiling the bathroom. It recommended a deep clean and mould wash to the affected areas in the kitchen. It also recommended installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 June 2024 to quote for the recommended works. This was a reasonable time period from the date of the inspection. The resident was not happy that the landlord was not completing works on this date and told the contractor to leave. It is a condition of the resident’s tenancy that she allow access to the landlord and its contractors when it has given reasonable notice of a visit. In an email to the landlord on 12 June 2024 the resident told it she had marked the appointment on her calendar. Based on this we are satisfied the landlord gave the resident prior notice of the visit.
The contractor told the landlord it would not attend the resident’s property again due to her conduct towards it on 10 June 2024.
The landlord instructed a new contractor who arranged a visit on or around 8 July 2024. This appointment did not go ahead. It is not clear from the records why this was. The contractor said it had called the resident on the date of the visit to reschedule and called her a couple of times afterwards. It had left voicemails but the resident had not responded.
A failed or missed appointment is no reason for the landlord not to complete the works. We would expect landlords to attempt different methods of contact with residents to reschedule works. We have not seen evidence that this happened in this case. The landlord did not take any further steps until it chased the contractor for an update on 23 July 2024. This delayed matters.
On 24 July 2024 the resident called the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs. This included the damp and mould. The landlord said the resident made concerning, threatening, and inappropriate comments about staff members during the call. It wrote to the resident to inform her that due to the comments made it would need to rearrange a scheduled surveyor’s appointment from 6 August 2024 to 8 August 2024. This was due to it having to send 2 staff members. It was reasonable that the landlord should want to ensure the safety of its staff and contractors. Attending visits in twos is a way of ensuring this. However, we have not seen any evidence that this visit went ahead or what the outcome was.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any further steps until the resident contacted it on 18 October 2024. There was no requirement for the resident to report the issue again. Following this contact, the landlord inspected the property on 29 October 2024. We have not seen the inspection report for this visit therefore we do not know what works it identified.
Between 3 December 2024 and 11 December 2024 the landlord tried to arrange a mutually convenient appointment with its damp and mould contractor and the resident. Given the inspection took place on 29 October, the time that passed before seeking to arrange the appointment was unreasonable. The need for the landlord to attend in twos made this more difficult. They agreed on 18 December 2024.
The appointment went ahead as planned. The damp and mould report said it found water on the bathroom floor, with damp patches to the kitchen walls and ceiling. It noted there was a leak from the bath which required repair. There was active mould in the kitchen and bathroom which indicated high humidity levels and condensation. There was no ventilation in the kitchen or bathroom. It recommended fitting extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom and treatment of the mould. Following the mould treatment the landlord should box off the pipe in the kitchen.
On 20 December 2024 the landlord asked its contractor to proceed with the recommended works from the survey. There was then a delay between 23 December 2024 and 14 February 2025. This was due to miscommunication between the landlord and the contractor. Each party was waiting for the other to arrange the appointment with the resident. The employee who had been liaising with the contractor had left the business and failed to pass the task onto another colleague to follow up. Landlords should have systems in place for when staff leave the business to ensure that it tracks and completes repairs within its repair timescales. This did not happen in this case.
Following further contact with the resident, the landlord arranged 2 appointments in February 2025 to complete the damp works. The contractor and the landlord attended prearranged appointments on 14 February 2025 and 21 February 2025. On both visits the resident did not allow access. The landlord waited at the property for 30 minutes and attempted to contact the resident by phone. The resident did not respond. The contractor confirmed the next available slot for its electrician to install the extractor fans would be 18 March 2025. The contractor changed this to 22 May 2025 because the landlord did not confirm the appointment for 18 March 2025 in time.
On 24 February 2025 the resident reported a leak from the bathroom tap. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended on the same date. The resident was not at home for the appointment. The contractor returned the following day to inspect and found the bath required a new seal. The contractor tried to arrange an appointment to complete the repair but the resident refused to allow access unless the landlord changed the taps, which she said were still leaking. The landlord said it would ask the contractor to inspect the taps when it attended to seal the bath. The contractor tried to arrange the visit again, it said the resident was abusive to it. It handed the job back to the landlord to arrange the appointment.
The landlord updated the resident on 2 May 2025 and told her it would install the extractor fans, complete the mould wash, and box in the pipes on 22 May 2025. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the appointment was suitable. The contractor and the landlord attended on 22 May 2025 but the resident was not at home. They spoke to the resident who said the contractor told her the appointment was for 28 May 2025. We can see the landlord had informed the resident of the appointment date via email. However, we have not seen any evidence to show the resident had confirmed this appointment. Based on this we cannot say the resident refused access on this date.
The landlord said it tried to rearrange appointments for the damp and mould works, the extractor fans, and bathroom repairs on at least 5 occasions between 22 April 2025 and 2 July 2025. Whilst we have not seen all the landlord’s attempts we can see it exchanged emails with the resident in April 2025, May 2025, and June 2025. It told the resident it would ask its repair team to organise the repairs if she would let it know when she would allow access.
In its complaint responses the landlord said it had surveyed the property and instructed a specialist damp and mould contractor. From December 2024 it had experienced difficulties in gaining access to the resident’s property to complete the works. It did not recognise any failures. On 16 July 2025 the landlord inspected the property and set out all the outstanding works in the property. We understand the landlord has been attempting to access the property to complete these works since. It has been unsuccessful and has instructed its legal advisors to progress this.
The relationship between the resident and the landlord broke down from August 2024. It was difficult for the landlord to progress works. This was due, in part, to the resident’s failure to allow access to the property and because the landlord had to send 2 operatives. However, based on the information we have seen, there were failures by the landlord before August 2024.
This included, delaying in completing an inspection following the resident’s report of damp and mould in April 2024. Failing to monitor and track works when a member of staff left the business. We cannot be satisfied that it completed a surveyor appointment in August 2024. There were also delays between 8 July 2024 to 23 July 2024 and August 2024 to October 2024 where the landlord did not take any proactive steps to progress matters. These failures lead to a finding of maladministration.
Because of the effect this had on the resident, we’ve ordered the landlord to pay £400. This fairly recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of toilet repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

On 28 April 2023 the resident reported a leak from the toilet when flushed. The landlord attended on the same date. It then completed follow-on works on 3 May 2023. This was inline with its repair policy, which says it will attend to an uncontainable leak from internal pipework within 24 hours and complete follow-on works within 5 working days.
Following completion of the repair on 3 May 2023 the landlord noted the toilet filled to the rim when flushed. It said there must be a blockage in the stack pipe.
The landlord did not raise this repair until 9 May 2023 which delayed matters. The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 May 2023. It cleared the blockage. It completed a CCTV survey of the stack pipe and drains. The survey found a collapsed pipe 2 meters from the main stack pipe. Following this the landlord raised a works order on 16 May 2023 to inspect the drains. The resident did not report a leak to her toilet again which would indicate the landlord completed the repair to the drains. However, due to lack of adequate records we cannot be satisfied it completed the repair within its repair timescale of 21 working days.
The resident said the landlord left her without a toilet whilst it completed the repair. The repair records show the toilet collar needed replacing. It is therefore reasonable to assume the resident should not use the toilet. This is because it could be leaking sewage and bacteria onto the floor. This could pose a health hazard and cause major water damage. As this was the only toilet in the house the landlord should have considered its decant policy at this point. The policy refers to emergency events such as a fire or flood which renders the property uninhabitable. In such cases the landlord will help residents to find alternative accommodation, such as staying with family and friends or hotel accommodation. In this case, the resident did not have access to a toilet, this meant the property was uninhabitable. The landlord failed to consider its decant policy at this time. It provided a portable toilet for the resident on 9 May 2023. The landlord should have provided this sooner.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order to repair and redecorate the kitchen ceiling following the leak from the toilet. This was a non-urgent repair. Therefore the landlord should have attended to inspect the works by 15 June 2023 and completed the works by 9 August 2023. It attended to quote for the works on 26 June 2023 and completed the works around 17 July 2023. This was in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord completed some repairs to the toilet following the resident’s report. It also investigated and completed repairs to the external drains. We cannot be satisfied the landlord completed the repair to the drains within its repair timescale. It failed to consider its decant policy. It delayed in providing alternative access to a toilet whilst it completed the repairs. This meant she did not have access to a working toilet for 6 days. This leads to a finding of maladministration. The landlord should pay compensation of £200 to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and proofing works.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repair policy says it will deal with reports of pests as a non-urgent repair. This means it should attend to the report within 21 working days and complete any follow-on works within 60 working days. The landlord does not have a procedure setting out how many treatments it will undertake.
The resident first reported mice in her property on 7 February 2024. She said they were in the kitchen, under the stairs, living room, and bedroom. In this case, it took the landlord 7 days to refer the resident’s report to its contractor. They attended on 14 February 2024 which was within the landlord’s 21 working day timescale.
The landlord’s pest control contractor completed further visits on 27 February 2024 and 28 March 2024. It found evidence of rodent activity at the first 2 visits and laid bait boxes. It recommended the landlord seal all holes in the junction where the wall meets the floor in the bathroom, front bedroom, kitchen, and understairs cupboard. The landlord should have completed the proofing works by 2 May 2024. This did not happen.
On 18 December 2024 the resident informed the landlord there was evidence of rat droppings in the kitchen during a damp and mould inspection. She reported this again on 23 December 2024. The landlord referred the issue to its pest control contractor on 23 December 2024.
The contractor attended on 3 January 2025. The resident told the contractor her dog had caught a rat in the back garden. The contractor inspected the garden but did not find any evidence of rodent activity at that time. On inspecting the kitchen the contractor noted a strong smell of rat urine and found old and new droppings. The contractor laid traps under the kitchen units. It made recommendations for proofing works to fill all ingress points into the house. It also recommended the landlord complete a deep clean under the kitchen units, following completion of the treatment and proofing works.
The contractor completed 6 follow up visits between 9 January 2025 and 10 February 2025. Following each visit the contractor provided a copy of its report to the landlord and the resident. This showed good practice in record keeping and updating the resident.
The landlord completed the recommended proofing works on 10 February 2025. This was inline with its 60 working day timescale.
On 24 February 2025 the resident informed the landlord the rat issue was ongoing. She said the contractor had not sealed all the holes under the kitchen cupboards. The resident also raised concerns that the rats may have got into the water tank. She asked the landlord to check this. The landlord raised a works order for its contractor to reattend to fill any remaining holes and to check the water tank on 24 February 2025.
The contractor arranged to attend on 25 March 2025. It is unclear from the records why the landlord rearranged the appointment to 8 April 2025. This rescheduled visit did not go ahead as planned due to the contractor being unwell. Whilst this was inconvenient for the resident, it was outside the landlord’s control.
The contractor attended on 11 April 2025. The contractor did not find any evidence of new rodent activity in the property at this visit. The resident showed the contractor a hole in the understairs cupboard. There were no gnaw marks around the hole. The contractor said rodents had not caused the hole. It did not need to complete any further proofing works.
There is no evidence that the contractor checked the water tank at this visit.
On 30 May 2025 the landlord asked its pest control contractor to complete another visit. It is unclear whether this was because of a new report from the resident or not. The contractor attended on 5 June 2025. It found evidence of historic and new rodent activity both inside and outside the property. The contractor recommended extensive proofing works to the kitchen and external drains. It also recommended an ongoing treatment plan and deep cleaning of the affected areas following completion of the works. The landlord asked its repair contractor to quote for the recommended works. The contractor attended on 16 July 2025. It provided a report which set out all the required works in the property, including the proofing works. We understand the works are outstanding due to the landlord not being able to access the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had attended to reports of pest infestation between December 2024 and April 2025 within a timely manner. However, there were earlier failures which it did not recognise. This included, failing to complete proofing works in May 2024. It also failed to check the water tank in April 2025 to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
These failures lead to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the repair to the loft hatch door and floorboard.
Finding	Maladministration

On 1 July 2024 the resident reported the loft hatch door had fallen onto the floor. She reported the same issue on 2 July 2024 and 3 July 2024 stating that she would ring back every 5 minutes until she received a response. On 5 July 2024 she reported the loft hatch had hit her when it fell and made a dent in the floorboard.
The landlord raised an emergency repair on 5 July 2024. This meant the contractor should attend within 24 hours. It asked its contractor to inspect the loft hatch, the loft ladder, and make safe the hole in the floor. The contractor spoke to the resident and told her it would attend that evening. The contractor called the resident when he was on route and said he would arrive at approximately 8:12pm. The resident had said this was fine. When he arrived the resident did not allow access to the property.
When the landlord spoke to the resident the following week to find out why she had not allowed access. She said the contractor had told her it would attend between 6pm and 8pm. The contractor had arrived at 8:12pm. Whilst the contractor arrived outside the appointment time, this was only by 12 minutes, and he had called the resident when on route. This was reasonable and there was no failure on the part of the landlord.
On 22 July 2024 the contractor informed the landlord it had been trying to rebook the appointment but had been unable to contact the resident. The contractor said the landlord had given it an incorrect phone number. However, it must have had the correct number because it had spoken to the resident on 5 July 2024.
We understand the contractor attended on 23 July 2024. Due to lack of adequate records we do not know what the landlord found at this visit or what follow-on works it needed to complete. The landlord did not take any further steps until the resident contacted it on 18 October 2024. There was no requirement for the resident to report this repair again. The landlord should have raised any required repairs after its July 2024 visit and then completed the repair within a reasonable timeframe. This did not happen.
The landlord repaired the loft hatch on 9 December 2024. This was 5 months after the resident first reported it.
Some of the delay was due to the resident not allowing access in July 2024. There was then a delay of approximately 4 months (July 2024 to October 2024) where the landlord did not take any proactive steps to complete the repair. As outlined earlier in this report, the landlord was having difficulties accessing the property from August 2024. However, based on what we have seen we cannot be satisfied the landlord made reasonable attempts to complete this repair within a reasonable timeframe. We also cannot be satisfied that it has inspected the damaged floorboard.
These failures lead to a finding of service failure. The landlord should pay compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused due to the delay.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

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 is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of a definition of a complaint and timescales.
2. The landlord should have sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 1 May 2025 following a request from this Service. It refused to do so, stating that the resident had not requested a stage 2 response within 20-working days of its stage 1 response dated 12 February 2025.
3. Our request for it to escalate the complaint was 9 days outside the landlord’s 20- working day criteria to escalate complaints. The complaint related to issues which the landlord had responded to in its February 2025 stage 1 response. The landlord should have escalated these aspects to stage 2 when we asked it to. It should then have responded to any issues not in the February 2025 response as a new stage 1. Its refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at this point was not fair or reasonable. This was not in line with the Code.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 4 April 2025. This meant it should have sent its stage 1 response by no later than 21 April 2025. It sent the response on 8 May 2025. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
5. The landlord should have acknowledged our request to escalate the resident’s complaint by 16 June 2025. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint. This was not in line with its policy and the Code.
6. It sent its stage 2 response on 7 July 2025. This was in line with its policy and the Code. However, it failed to refer to all points of the complaint, this included the loft hatch repair. The Code says residents are not required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2. It also says landlords are expected to understand why a resident remains unhappy.
7. The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for damaged personal belongings caused by the rats and the leaking toilet. In its complaint response the landlord said it had not received any evidence of personal items being damaged. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may consider discretionary compensation where there has been a service failure. It is reasonable that the landlord would ask to see evidence of the damage before deciding whether to offer compensation. In this case the landlord did not request evidence of the damage from the resident. We have therefore ordered it to contact the resident to request this evidence. It must then reconsider this issue and confirm the reason for its decision to the resident.
8. The resident asked the landlord to move her permanently as an outcome to her complaint. The landlord should have considered this request under its Temporary and Permanent Move ‘Decant’ Policy. It should have given a clear response, set out its reasons, and referred to its policy. It did not do this. This was not in line with the Code.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failures with its complaint handling. The resident asked this Service for help to progress her complaint. Despite our intervention the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. This delayed the resident from progressing her complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure. This delayed her accessing this Service. It then delayed in sending its response at stage 1, did not send an acknowledgement at stage 2, and did not respond to all parts of the complaint.
The failures identified leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repairs records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord demonstrated good communication with the resident by providing copies of its pest infestation reports to the resident following each visit. It should consider providing similar updates to residents for other repairs and inspections.