Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202336944)

Background

1. The resident lived at the property with her child. She reported a mice infestation in the property and the wider block.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a mice infestation.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a mice infestation

4. The landlord took reasonable action to bait the property but delayed proofing holes in the resident’s kitchen to stop mice entering. It significantly delayed in responding to her reports of a block-wide infestation. The landlord apologised for some of its failures and offered redress. It did not respond to the resident’s reports of damage to her cooker, health and safety and fire risks, or her request for information about alternative accommodation.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response a few days late and did not respond to all the issues the resident raised in her 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 did not investigate

6. The resident raised additional complaints in 2024 and 2025 about the landlord’s response to her reports of a mice infestation. These complaints have not been brought to us, and we will not consider them in this investigation.

What we did investigate

7. The resident reported mice in the property on 12 May 2023. The landlord’s pest control guidance confirmed it would send pest contractors to deal with pests and confirm how they accessed the property. It said if they found access holes that needed proofing, the landlord would complete works within its standard priority timescales. Its repairs policy set out response timescales of 24 hours for an emergency, 15 working days for urgent repairs and 60 working days for non-urgent repairs.
8. Contractors baited the property on 19 May 2023 within the landlord’s 15 working day target. They identified a possible access point behind the kitchen units. The landlord delayed in investigating the required proofing works.
9. On 28 June 2023 contractors again recommended removing the kitchen units to access and seal the holes. The landlord delayed raising works while awaiting a quote. During this period the resident repeatedly chased for updates about the proofing works. At times, the landlord did not respond. Between 8 and 13 July 2023 the resident reported a worsening infestation, including an incident where a mouse ran over her young child. She also confirmed she had to stay with family. Contractors baited the property on 17 July 2023, within a reasonable period of time. They again confirmed proofing was required.
10. Between 11 and 13 July 2023 the resident also reported mice in the wider block. The landlord did not respond to her concerns, despite its policy confirming it was responsible for communal infestations. It provided limited evidence of its actions in relation to block pest control, which has impacted our assessment.
11. Pest contractors tried to attend but could not access the property on 31 July 2023 and agreed to rebook. They requested an update on the baiting and proofing on 1 August 2023. The landlord said contractors attended on 3 August 2023, found no bait was taken and proofed a hole, but it has provided limited evidence of this visit. Its records confirm it completed proofing works in the kitchen on 11 August 2023, 59 working days after it was on notice that proofing works may be required. The landlord later apologised that it had not acted on its contractors’ recommendations sooner.
12. The landlord said the resident reported ongoing mice activity on 15 August 2023. The landlord said contractors attended on 21 August 2023, recommended removing the kitchen cupboards and the cooker to proof holes. It has provided limited evidence of this visit, and it is unclear whether any baiting works took place. It is also unclear why these works were required after proofing works on 11 August 2023. The landlord raised scoping works on 24 August 2023 and completed removal, proofing and reinstatement of the kitchen units on 22 September 2023 within its 15 working day timescale.
13. In its stage 1 response, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer redress. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about a wider block infestation. It did not acknowledge its significant delay in responding to this issue.
14. Contractors attended on 20 October 2023, found no pest activity and confirmed holes around and behind the units had been filled. When the resident reported mice on 1 November 2023, contractors attended on 20 November 2023 within the landlord’s 15 working day timescale, found no activity and made no further proofing recommendations.
15. Following the resident’s report of damage to kitchen units on 17 November 2023, the landlord raised works on 22 November 2023 to replace the worktops and re‑proof holes. It set a 60 working day timescale, in line with its policy, and booked a scoping inspection for 15 December 2023.
16. The resident reported mice in the wider block again on 2 November 2023. Pest control contractors attended 4 times and ended the programme on 21 December 2023 after finding no activity. It was in line with the landlord’s pest control guidance for it to respond to the block infestation, though it is unclear from its evidence when these visits took place.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about a damaged cooker, health and safety and fire hazards, or her questions about alternative accommodation. It was reasonable for it to explain its position on rent refund requests, and it later confirmed it considered the property to be habitable. It has not evidenced whether it completed all the actions it agreed in relation to block pest control, such as arranging to cut back bushes.
18. The landlord completed kitchen scoping works as agreed on 15 December 2023. It booked works to the kitchen worktops, and to re-proof holes in the kitchen, as agreed in its stage 2 response.
19. The resident reported finding dead mice and faeces in the property. She said her child was distressed and that she stayed with family for around 5 or 6 weeks due to the infestation. She said the situation affected her wellbeing, work, and her child’s schooling, and that she repeatedly had to chase the landlord. She said she felt it did not acknowledge the impact on her household.
20. The landlord acknowledged some of its failures and offered redress but did not recognise all its failures of service. We have therefore made orders in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident. The total compensation we have ordered is consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy for considerable service failures where the resident had to chase for updates and the landlord repeatedly did not follow its policies.

21. The landlord said it no longer had a copy of the resident’s complaint of 31 August 2023 but contacted her by phone at both stages to understand the issues.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy was compliant with the 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It required the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages exactly 5 working days after she raised/escalated the complaint. This was in line with its timescales. It issued a stage 1 response 3 working days later than it advised her it would, and its timescales allowed. Its stage 2 response met its complaints policy timescales.
24. There was a small delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response. It did not respond to multiple issues the resident raised in her complaint which was not in line with the Code. As the landlord did not address these failures in its complaints procedure, we have made orders in line with our remedies guidance for minor unacknowledged failures.

Learning

25. The landlord identified relevant learning at both stages, which was positive. At stage 1 it highlighted a need to ensure it read its contractors reports and arrange recommended works. At stage 2 it set out learning to ensure it renewed pest control works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord did not provide a record of the resident’s initial complaint. It did not provide detailed records of all its pest control and proofing works, especially in relation to the wider block. At times, this impacted our assessment of its actions.

Communication

27. On multiple occasions, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries or requests for an update. It acknowledged communication failures in its complaint responses.