Sovereign Network Group (202513424)

Background

1. The resident lives in a mid-terraced property with her 2 young grandchildren. There are privately owned properties either side. The resident said the pest issue in her garden has been present since she moved in around 15 years ago. Over the years the resident has attempted the remedy the situation herself. There is evidence pest control contractors have recommended steps to the landlord to address the issue in at least 2018 and 2021.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of pest reports.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pest reports.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of pest reports

6. The landlord has taken minimal steps to attempt to address the issue for the resident. There have been lengthy delays with little to no action. Its overall communication has been poor with the resident repeatedly having to chase for updates.

Landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord did not use its complaints process to put things right for the resident at the earliest opportunity. It did not acknowledge failings, and has failed to do what it said it would, in both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.

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.

What we did not consider

8. We acknowledge the resident said the pest issue has been ongoing for 15 years and the resident has complained to the landlord previously. The resident complained again in June 2025. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. While the history is noted for context, we will only consider events from June 2024 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). The end date is 14 July 2025 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
9. The resident told us about the impact living at the property had on her physical and mental health. We empathise with her situation. But we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/lack of action and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement was signed with her previous landlord which merged with her current landlord in October 2023. Her tenancy agreement is silent on who is responsible in the event of pest issues.
11. The landlord’s pests policy says:
    1. Residents are responsible to check their tenancy agreement to establish responsibility for treatments of pests.
    2. It will:
       1. Take reasonably prompt action to manage pest infestations which it has responsibility for.
       2. Complete remedial works at residents’ homes to stop pest access where this is recommended by… its pest control contractor.
       3. Manage its pest contractor.
       4. Signpost customers to their Local Authority when required and manage infestations in residents’ homes where there is a statutory nuisance.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy (December 2023) says it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days of being reported. The website says this has changed to 42 calendar days for routine repairs.
13. When a resident reports a pest infestation, the landlord should investigate. If it is found that a pest issue is present, we will look to see that the landlord follows the advice of specialists and undertakes the recommended course of action to solve the issue.
14. The evidence showed the resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2024 in relation to repairs required at the property. An inspection was booked promptly for 17 June 2024, however the landlord cancelled and requested images instead. The resident chased on 5 July 2024 and reported a rat’s nest in her garden 2 days later. It was unclear what happened in the following 2 months, however the resident told us she was phoning for updates. The evidence showed the resident chased again on 16 September 2024. It was unclear whether the landlord had taken any action since the initial report in July 2024, however this was a 3-month delay, which was unreasonable. However, after the resident chased in September 2024, it was positive the landlord:
    1. Raised a property inspection promptly.
    2. Arranged for pest contractors to visit.

These were reasonable steps to take.

The landlord’s pest contractors visited on, or around, the 24 September 2024 and made recommendations that the drains should be inspected. There was no evidence the landlord took any action, however it visited on 2 October 2024 and promptly raised multiple repairs the following day. This included to “infill all cracks with sand and cement to rear garden perimeter.” While it was positive the landlord raised repairs identified from the property inspection, there was no evidence any action was considered following the pest contractor visit, which was unreasonable.

15. The evidence showed the pest contractor carried out a follow-up visit on 16 October 2024, which was positive. It noted “the bait placed previously had been taken” and made recommendations to inspect the drains. And to remove grass and debris harbours from the back of the property. Again, there was also no evidence the landlord took any further action in relation to the recommendations, which was a failing. This led the resident to chase, a month later, on 15 November 2024. In response, the landlord emailed the resident 5 days later and said it had scheduled a contractor to attend on 22 November 2024.
16. It was unclear what happened with the contractor appointment. But the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 26 November 2024. The solicitor served a notice of statutory nuisance and said it would issue legal proceedings if the landlord had not acted within 21 days. Internal landlord emails the following day showed it acknowledged it had not taken any further action in relation to the pest contractor recommendations, which was a failing. However, it requested a drain inspection and to clear the garden the same day, which was positive.
17. The evidence showed a contractor contacted the resident on 23 December 2024 to “make an appointment… to see your garden.” The repair records show the landlord had raised a work order to remove a tree root following the inspection on 2 October 2024. It was unclear whether the contractor contacted the resident in relation to clearing the garden, removing the tree root, or both. However, an internal landlord email of 30 January 2025 said:
    1. The garden had been cleared (which the resident disputed and said “the work involved using machinery to grind the stump of the tree and injecting the root and to clear the ash and elder, rather than a comprehensive garden clearance.”)
    2. The drain survey needed to be carried out.
    3. It needed to contact its pest contractor to re-attend.

There was no evidence the landlord followed up on the drain survey, or contacted pest control. These were further failings and missed opportunities to try and address the issue for the resident.

18. There was then no evidence of further action until an email from a landlord contractor on 20 May 2025. The contractor said it had “gone for a slab option” and provided a quote. The evidence showed the quote initially caused confusion and prompted the landlord to enquire internally why it had been provided. Internal emails 2 days later showed the landlord said it needed to “carry out [a garden] clearance and do proofing works in the garden” due to “gaps present and rodent entry.” However, there was no evidence any further action was taken in relation to the quote for almost 4 weeks, which was a further delay. Internal landlord emails on 17 June 2025 said:
    1. “It did not agree to paving the garden and it was not sure where [its contractor] got the idea to quote for paving.”
    2. Its contractor was asked to “infill the holes where there was rodent entry.”

The landlord wrote to the resident the same day to explain its position in relation to the garden. The landlord has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively. It was therefore within its rights to decide not to proceed with flagging/concreting the garden. However,

1. This was almost 8.5 months after the landlord raised a work order to infill the holes, which was a significant delay.
2. There was a lack of:
   1. Clear communication as to what the contractor should have quoted for.
   2. Ownership of the repairs required to address the confirmed pest issue.

These were failings and led the resident to raise her formal complaint 3 days later.

19. The landlord used the stage 1 complaint response to:
    1. Reiterate its position regarding the quote to patio the garden.
    2. Raise a work order for a drain inspection.

While these were reasonable steps to take, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The complaint escalation prompted the landlord to discuss the case at a case meeting. The drain survey was completed on 21 July 2025. While this was in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescale, it was 7.5 months after the landlord had initially raised the drain survey on 5 December 2024. And almost 10 months after the pest contractor had recommended a drain survey, which was a significant delay. The evidence showed the drain survey contractor recommended follow-on work, however this was not raised until 1 August 2025, another week and a half delay.

20. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out action it would take to address the pest issue at the property, which was reasonable. However, there was no evidence the follow-on work for the drains was ever completed, which was a failing. The repair log showed the drain follow-on work was re-raised again on 13 October 2025, another 2 months later.
21. We accept that it is not clear in the tenancy agreement who is responsible for dealing with the rat infestation. It was positive the landlord arranged for a pest contractor to attend. But overall, its handling of the situation has been poor. The lack of clarity regarding who is responsible, failure to monitor repairs, and poor communication have protracting the issue for the resident. This has led her to formally complain, contact solicitors, her local MP, local authority, and us, in an effort to get the pest issue addressed. The landlord:
    1. Took little to no action between:
       1. 7 July 2024 and 16 September 2024, a period of over 2 months, and only prompted by the resident chasing.
       2. 16 October 2024 and 15 November 2024, a period of a month, and only prompted by the resident chasing.
       3. 30 January 2025 and 20 May 2025, a period of almost 4 months, and only prompted by receiving a contractor quote for work.
    2. Was poor in its monitoring and handling of repairs and no one taking responsibility. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor.
       1. The landlord raised repairs to the perimeter of the garden on 3 October 2024. This has still not been done, now over 1 year and 3 months later.
       2. There were delays in raising repairs that the pest contractor recommended. A drain survey was recommended on 24 September 2024 – however there was no evidence this was done until around 16 July 2025 – 8 months later.
       3. The communication and management of its contractors was poor in terms of the garden clearance and quote to infill holes round the perimeter.
       4. The follow-on work for the drains was slow to be raised, and then not monitored or completed.
    3. Was poor in its communication with:
       1. The resident which led her to chase on numerous occasions.
       2. Contractors which led to confusion over what work was required.
    4. There was no evidence the landlord referred the resident to her local authority to see if environmental health would confirm if the rat infestation was a statutory nuisance.
22. The landlord’s lack of urgency or proactive involvement in addressing the pest issue, coupled with poor communication, ultimately left the resident living with a significant pest issue for an unreasonable length of time. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience and affected her enjoyment of the property, particularly her garden. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made little attempt to put things right. There was therefore maladministration and orders have been made to put things right.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy (October 2024) which says:
    1. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    2. It will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
24. It was positive the landlord acknowledged and issued the stage 1 response within policy timescales. It also acknowledged that it should have raised the drain inspection sooner. However:
    1. It failed to acknowledge the lack of action taken in relation to filling in cracks in the garden raised in October 2024.
    2. There were mistakes caused by the poor record keeping (commented on below). It said:
       1. A drain survey was raised on 5 December 2024 and attended. Further works were approved on 19 December 2024 which were completed on 30 January 2025. However, there it was unclear whether this happened with the landlord going on to acknowledge it did “not have a specific report to indicate what works were done” in the stage 2 response.
       2. It had cleared the garden as a gesture of goodwill, however this had not happened.
    3. It did not consider compensation.
    4. It said it would monitor the drain survey with its contractor and review recommendations/communicate next steps. But there was no evidence it did so.
25. It was also positive the stage 2 response was sent within policy timeframe. However, this was second missed opportunity to identify failings and put things right. It also said follow-on work would be completed and further actions communicated. However, there was no evidence this was done. The repair log showed the same follow-on work was raised on 1 August 2025 and again on 13 October 2025. There was no evidence to confirm if the work has been completed.
26. Overall, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. There was therefore maladministration and an order of £250 compensation is made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. Landlord’s should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. The landlord’s record keeping in this case has been particularly poor. This has meant it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did or why, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
28. There was no evidence provided by the landlord of:
    1. The first pest contractor visit in September 2024.
    2. The inspection completed in October 2024.
    3. What happened (if anything) to the contractor appointment scheduled for 22 November 2024.
    4. What work was carried out (if any) on a drainage visit supposedly attended in December 2024.
    5. What work was carried out when the contractor attended in January 2025 for garden work.
    6. Exactly when drain surveys were completed. The repair logs have target dates but not completed dates. The repair log showed a drain survey raised on 1 July 2025. It was unclear whether this was attended on 16 or 21 July, or both.
    7. A work order attended on 25 July 2025 where the resident said she was not notified.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with both the resident and its contractors has been poor, as commented on in the report.