Origin Housing Limited (202438970)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since December 1986. The property is a 1 bedroom, top floor flat. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service and the landlord he said the property has been suffering from a pest infestation for over 14 years. He also said that he has been experiencing noise disturbance for 15 years. However, the earliest record seen of a formal complaint being raised to the landlord about these issues is dated 6 December 2021. We previously investigated a complaint about these issues under our reference 202007115, that report was issued on 9 May 2024. The resident raised a further complaint about these issues through this Service on 20 May 2025. He said the pest infestation and noise disturbance issues had not been resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. A pest infestation.
   2. Noise disturbance.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
5. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
6. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord failed to carry out a pest treatment in line with its policy timescales following the resident’s report in July 2024. This caused a delay which left him in a property suffering from pests for an extended period of time. There were some other delays in the landlord carrying out pest control treatments at the property. However, these were reasonable as they were due to the landlord communicating with multiple agencies to try and find a permanent solution to the problem.
8. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance. The landlord said this offer was in recognition of its failure to adequately investigate the resident’s reports of noise disturbance. This amount is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident but did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
9. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint. This was in recognition of the delay caused by it extending the deadline to issue the stage 2 response. The amount is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident but which have no permanent impact.

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.

10. As mentioned earlier in this report, we previously investigated a complaint about issues relating to a pest infestation under our reference 202007115. That investigation report was issued on 9 May 2024. We may not consider matters which, in our opinion, seek to raise again matters which we have already decided upon. As such, this investigation has only considered events relating to the pest infestation from 9 May 2024 onwards.
11. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it offers appointments to deal with certain pests including bed bugs. It says the landlord will attend to resolve pest issues, such as bed bugs, within 30 days.
12. On 8 July 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that he was still experiencing issues with bed bugs (pests). He said he believed the pests were coming from the uncapped pipes in the bathroom and the landlord needed to replace these to resolve the issue. Evidence has not been seen to show the landlord took any action until the resident made a further report on 1 October 2024. This was not in line with its pest control policy and the landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in the landlord treating the pest infestation. Furthermore, the delay in treatment left the resident in a property suffering from pests for an extended period of time.
13. The landlord carried out pest control treatments on 11, 18 and 24 October 2024. The evidence seen also shows the landlord attempted a fourth visit on 31 October 2024, but it could not access the property. The reports from these visits do not have any comments but contain photos of the condition of the property, the pests and the products used to treat them. These treatments were all carried out within 30 days of the resident’s report on 1 October 2024. We have also noted that the landlord’s records indicate the resident only allowed the contractors access to the bedroom and bathroom to carry out the treatments.
14. On 11 and 22 December 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the pests had returned. The landlord’s records dated 22 and 24 January 2025 indicate it had been in contact with adult social care (ASC) about the resident and the situation. In response, ASC confirmed that it did not have any open cases for the resident. It said this was because it had previously offered to help him, but he had not given consent and had declined their offer of help. The records show that following the response from ASC the landlord arranged a pest treatment for 4 February 2025. While the landlord arranged the treatment outside of its policy timescales, this was reasonable in this instance. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact ASC to ask what, if any, assistance it could give the resident before taking further action.
15. On 24 January 2025 the resident rescheduled the pest treatment for 14 February 2025. However, when the landlord attended on 14 February 2025 it was unable to gain access to the property. The appointment was then rescheduled and took place on 27 February 2025. The appointment report said the resident had thrown out the bed and mattress that had previously been provided to him. It said the mattress was still outside the property and it was infested with bed bugs. The report also described the treatment the landlord carried out and contained photos of the bedroom and bathroom.
16. The landlord’s records show the resident made further reports about a pest infestation on 18 March 2025. However, there were no further pest treatments until 2 July 2025. That said, the evidence seen shows that during this period the landlord was in contact with both the pest control company and ASC. Around 28 April 2025 the pest control company confirmed the issues were due to the resident’s living conditions and the number of items in the property. It said that any further treatments would not resolve the issue unless the property was decluttered and deep cleaned first.
17. We appreciate that the resident believes the source of the pests is the uncapped pipes in the bathroom. However, landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third-party evidence to the contrary. In this instance, the pest control company confirmed that the source of the pests was not the pipes in the bathroom. It is our understanding that the pest control company also confirmed this following a visit in June 2024. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of this report.
18. On 23 May 2025 the landlord contacted ASC to ask if it would be willing to carry out a deep clean of the resident’s property. ASC responded on 27 May 2025 and confirmed that it would be able to do a deep clean with the resident’s consent. The landlord then communicated this to the resident in its stage 1 response dated 4 June 2025.
19. The landlord’s records indicate that following its stage 1 response the resident did not engage with it or ASC with regard to the deep clean. On 23 June 2025 the landlord told the resident that the pest control company would carry out another treatment. However, it also told him the pests would return if the property was not deep cleaned and asked him to provide a suitable date for this. We have not seen evidence that the resident consented to or provided a date for the deep clean. Despite this, the landlord carried out a further pest treatment on 2 July 2025.
20. There was a roughly 2-month delay in the landlord carrying out a treatment after the resident’s report of pests on 18 March 2025. However, this was a reasonable delay given the landlord was in contact with the pest control company and ASC to try and find a lasting resolution to the issue. It was also reasonable for the landlord to minimise the pest issues with a treatment on 2 July 2025, despite a deep clean not having been completed.
21. The resident reported to the landlord that the pests had returned on 4 August 2025. In response the landlord spoke to the resident and followed this up with an email. During the call the resident agreed to let ASC deep clean the property and gave the landlord consent to ask ASC to contact him to arrange a date. The landlord emailed ASC about the deep clean that same day and raised a repair to have the pipes in the bathroom sealed. However, later that day the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to cancel the deep clean by ASC. He also reiterated his belief that the pests were coming from the bathroom pipes. In its stage 2 response the landlord reiterated that the resident declining assistance to clean the property had limited its ability to resolve the pest issues. It also confirmed that no further action could be taken until a deep clean and clearance was carried out.
22. Overall, as set out above, the landlord’s failure amounts to a service failure and can be summarised as failing to carry out a pest treatment within its policy timescales following the resident’s report in July 2024. We acknowledge that there were other delays in the landlord carrying out pest treatments after the resident’s reports. However, these were largely due to the landlord’s attempts to arrange for ASC to deep clean the property following advice from the pest control company. While these delays would have been inconvenient, it was reasonable for the landlord to try and resolve the root cause of the issue before carrying out more treatments.
23. In view of this, we order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and offer the resident £100 compensation. This sum is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings by the landlord in the service it provided and which it did not acknowledge.
24. We also order the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident to find a long term solution to the pest infestation and its root cause. This action plan should include how the landlord will monitor the situation, for example monthly inspections, until it is satisfied the issue is resolved. We would like to emphasise that the resident’s full cooperation is vital to the success of any agreed action plan. As such, we encourage the resident to fully engage and cooperate with the landlord to resolve the pest issues.

25. As mentioned earlier in this report, we previously investigated a complaint about issues relating to a pest infestation under our reference 202007115. That investigation report was issued on 9 May 2024. We may not consider matters which, in our opinion, seek to raise again matters which we have already decided upon. As such, this investigation has only considered events relating to noise disturbance from 9 May 2024 onwards.
26. In our report for 202007115 we ordered the landlord to inspect the loft space above the resident’s property. This was because that was where the resident said the noise was coming from. We also ordered it to consider whether it should provide the resident with noise recording equipment or a suitable alternative.
27. The landlord provided evidence of compliance with these orders on 6 June 2024. This showed that on 25 May 2024 it had inspected the loft space and then informed the resident of its findings on 29 May 2024. It confirmed that no noise was heard during the inspection and it had not identified anything that could cause the reported noise. The evidence also confirmed the landlord had reoffered its noise app to the resident to allow him to record the noise, but he had declined this. It also said it had provided the resident with information on how to report noise to the local authority environmental health team.
28. Between 29 May 2024 and 18 March 2025 the resident reported experiencing noise disturbance no less than 9 times. The resident’s reports did not clearly set out what the noise he was experiencing was or where he thought it was coming from. The reports mainly just informed the landlord that the noise was ongoing. However, our understanding is the noise in question was the ‘buzzing’ and radio playing from the loft which formed part of the resident’s previous complaint.
29. While the landlord was in regular contact with the resident during this period, its records do not show that it properly investigated his reports of noise. For example, it did not ask him for details about the noise and ask him to log incidents on diary sheets or the noise app. We are aware that the resident has said that he was previously submitting diary sheets to the local authority, but it told him to stop using that service. However, the landlord is separate to the local authority and therefore it should have explained this to the resident and provided diary sheets for him to complete. Similarly, we appreciate that the resident had previously refused to use the landlord’s noise app. Despite this it should have continued to advise him to use it and remind him of its importance in aiding it in investigating his reports. The landlord’s failure to adequately investigate the resident’s reports was unreasonable. This failure caused a delay in it potentially identifying and taking steps to resolve the reported noise.
30. On 21 March 2025 the landlord responded to the resident’s report of noise dated 11 March 2025. It said it had noted the resident had been experiencing noise disturbance due to the floorboards for several years and carpets could help resolve this. It said there were no funds left to assist him with installing this and he should contact it again in the new financial year. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that it may be able to offer financial assistance in the new financial year. However, based on the evidence provided the resident had not said the noise was caused by the floorboards. Rather, his communications with the landlord referred to the floorboards in relation to the pest infestation he was experiencing. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
31. In April and May 2025, the resident made a further 5 reports of ongoing noise disturbance. In its stage 1 response, dated 4 June 2025, the landlord said it had been unable to investigate the resident’s reports due to a lack of evidence. It asked him to provide evidence by submitting diary sheets online and using its noise app. It was appropriate for the landlord to request evidence of the noise from the resident and provide him with information on how to submit this. However, it should have done this when the resident reported the noise disturbance and not waited until it issued its stage 1 response to do so. This caused a further delay in the landlord’s being able to try to identify and resolve the reported noise.
32. Overall, as set out above, the landlord’s failure can be summarised as failing to adequately investigate the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
33. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has used the complaints process to fully acknowledge any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
34. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that during the period in question it had not adequately investigated the resident’s reports. It said that while he did not provide any specifics about the noise, it should have asked him for this and reminded him to log incidents on diary sheets or the noise app. In recognition of this failure the landlord offered £100 compensation.
35. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £100 offered for this failing is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This sum is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident but did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.

36. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage the landlord will inform the resident. It says an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
37. The resident raised the complaint through this Service on 20 May 2025. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 4 June 2025. This was within its complaints policy timescales.
38. The resident responded to the landlords stage 1 response and expressed his dissatisfaction on 4 June 2025. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of it escalating the complaint at this time. Rather, the evidence indicates the landlord only escalated the complaint after this Service asked it to do so on 2 July 2025. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in it responding to the resident’s complaint.
39. The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the complaint on 3 July 2025. On 31 July 2025 it contacted the resident and requested a 20 working day extension to the deadline. It then issued its stage 2 response on 15 August 2025. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy procedure and timescales.
40. Overall, the landlord’s failure can be summarised as failing to log the resident’s escalation of the complaint on 4 June 2025.
41. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the impact of the delay caused by it extending the deadline for its stage 2 response. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to escalate the complaint following the resident’s reply to the stage 1 response on 4 June 2025. That said, no evidence has been seen to show this failing had an impact on the outcome of the complaint or a lasting impact on the resident.
42. As such, we find that the £50 compensation offered in the stage 2 response is reflective and proportionate to the complaint handling failings identified in this report. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.