Auxesia Homes Limited (202510252)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in April 2024 and was the first person to occupy the house. The property was managed by a managing agent on behalf of the landlord at the time the complaint was made. The resident told the managing agent his property was damp and this led to an infestation of plaster beetles and other insects. He said the situation affected his wife’s mental health and they did not feel safe or comfortable in their home. The landlord told this Service that it had recently sold its share in the property to another registered housing provider.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint Is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
4. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord was not notified about a potential pest infestation until after the resident had arranged for his property to be inspected by a pest control company. The landlord arranged for the property to be inspected on receipt of the resident’s complaint and offered to cover the cost of the survey and remedial works.
7. The landlord acknowledged it should have intervened earlier after the resident reported damp and mould to the managing agent. It offered an apology and said it would cover the cost of the survey and the remedial work. It also amended its procedures to ensure its managing agent immediately notified it of reports of damp and mould.
8. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there was a delay in responding to the resident’s initial 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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

9. In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a pest infestation, it is noted that he has referred to a possible impact upon his wife’s mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.
10. There is no evidence the resident told the landlord or managing agent there was a pest infestation in his home prior to him arranging for a pest control company to carry out an inspection in September 2024. This meant the landlord was unaware of a potential hazard and could not undertake an assessment to determine if it needed to take any action.
11. The pest control company arranged for the resident’s property to be fumigated after several dead insects were found in the kitchen and bedroom. No evidence of a pest infestation was identified during a follow-up inspection that was carried out on 13 September 2024 by the company and the risk was identified as low. The pest control company noted the resident had purchased a dehumidifier to dry out the walls.
12. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident reported the infestation to the landlord. The managing agent sent him an information leaflet about plaster beetles on 3 October 2024 and noted it could not offer an explanation as to why they had appeared a year after the property was built. It recommended the resident kept the heating on during the cooler parts of the day. It would have been reasonable for the managing agent to have arranged for the property to be inspected at this point and to have confirmed whether the landlord or the resident was responsible for eradicating the pests.
13. The resident made a complaint on 27 May 2025. He told the managing agent he noticed an infestation of plaster beetles, book lice and springtails when he moved into the property. He noted he arranged for a pest control company to inspect his home and it had advised him to purchase a dehumidifier and ensure the property was ventilated regularly. He also noted that he continued to have problems with insects despite following the advice given. The resident said the situation was affecting his wife’s mental health and they did not feel safe or comfortable in their home.
14. The managing agent arranged for the developer to visit the resident’s home on 28 May 2025. The managing agent’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously. No evidence of a pest infestation was found during the visit.
15. The resident arranged for a damp and mould survey to be completed on 30 May 2025. A dead insect was found on the floor in front of the kitchen base unit during the inspection and it was noted the floor under the base units was covered in dust and debris. The surveyor noted that debris including sawdust was a food source for mites and recommended it was removed.
16. The resident provided the managing agent with an update on 2 June 2025 and noted he had arranged for the company to carry out the work on the following day. He said he wanted compensating for the distress that had been caused and to be reimbursed for the cost he had incurred.
17. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 July 2025.
18. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
19. In this case, the landlord noted that the developer agreed to inspect the resident’s home in May 2025 despite the property being outside the warranty period. It said no evidence of a pest infestation had been identified during the inspection. This provided clarity. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience or distress that had been caused and offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of the fumigation and remedial work. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
20. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 30 July 2025 in its final complaint response. This included noting it had spoken with the pest control company employed by the resident, who had confirmed that whilst 1 dead insect had been found in the kitchen, there was no evidence, of a pest infestation. The landlord also said it would reimburse the resident the £396 he had paid to have his home fumigated. It said it would not increase its offer of compensation or offer a rent refund. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

21. The resident told the landlord’s managing agent on 27 May 2025 that his property was damp and there had been problems with wet plaster since he moved in. He told the managing agent on the following day that he had arranged for a surveyor to carry out a damp survey on 30 May 2025.
22. The surveyor appointed by the resident carried out a damp survey on 30 May 2025. High moisture levels were identified underneath the kitchen base units. Mould was identified on the top and inside the kitchen wall units. Whilst the surveyor did not identify the cause of the mould, they noted high damp readings were common in new build properties where the concrete is in the process of drying out. The surveyor confirmed the resident had been using a dehumidifier for several months. They recommended a commercial dehumidifier was used to dry the concrete floor and it was sealed. They also recommended the water mains pipe was sealed and the extractor fan in the ground floor toilet was repaired.
23. The resident provided the managing agent with an update on 2 June 2025 and noted that he had arranged for the identified work to be carried out on the following day. He said he wanted compensation for the distress that had been caused and to be reimbursed the cost he had incurred.
24. The landlord confirmed on 16 July 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident first reported damp and mould to its managing agent in May 2025 when he made a complaint. He arranged for a damp survey to be completed on 30 May 2025, which confirmed that the humidity levels in the property were acceptable and there was no evidence of wet plaster.
25. The landlord said it would have arranged for a damp survey to have been completed had it been made aware of the resident’s concerns. It offered the resident an apology and said it would reimburse him the cost of the survey and the remedial works. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It also said it had changed its procedure to ensure its managing agent immediately notified it upon receiving reports of damp and mould. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint.
26. The resident told the landlord on 18 July 2025 that he wanted compensating for the distress that had been caused and to be refunded the cost of the dehumidifier he had purchased and the rent he had paid.
27. The landlord noted on 30 July 2025 in its final complaint response that it should have intervened earlier to save the resident the inconvenience of organising a survey. It said it did not do this because it was unaware of the issues experienced by him. The landlord reconfirmed it would reimburse the resident £360 to cover the cost of the damp survey and remedial works. It said it would not increase its offer of compensation or offer a rent refund. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

28. The resident made a complaint on 27 May 2025. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 7 July 2025. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
29. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 July 2025. This was some 7 weeks after the resident raised his complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The delay in responding is likely to have caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding. This was a failure and not consistent with its compensation policy.
30. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 July 2025. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request. This was a further failure and meant the resident was not clear when he could expect to receive a response.
31. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 30 July 2025 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.             

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

33. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.