Hyde Housing Association Limited (202449388)

Decision
Case ID	202449388
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The resident moved into the property with his family in September 2024 after completing a mutual exchange. Several members of the family have complex needs including compromised immune systems, neurodiversity, and physical disabilities. The previous tenant left carpets down in the property, and in December 2024 the resident discovered a pest infestation. The landlord said that the resident had taken responsibility for the carpets in the exchange and therefore he was responsible for treating or removing the carpets.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation in the carpets.
3. The landlord’s decision not to remove or replace the resident’s carpets.
4. We have also investigated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found no maladministration in:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in his carpets.
   2. the landlord’s decision not to remove or replace the resident’s carpets.
6. We also found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in his carpets

7. The landlord sent a pest controller after the resident reported the fleas. There is evidence that the landlord adapted its service to meet the resident’s needs, particularly when it came to pest control treatments. Its decision not to treat for ticks was consistent with its policy.

The landlord’s decision not to remove or replace the resident’s carpets

8. The landlord followed its internal policies and procedures. The paperwork that the resident signed when moving into the property did transfer responsibility to him for any items left behind, this included the carpets.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord followed its policy and responded to the resident in appropriate timescales. It explained its decisions and referred the resident to the relevant paperwork to support its decision.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 September 2024	The landlord completed an induction with the resident when he moved in. In this induction, the landlord made a note of any items the outgoing tenant had left behind which included carpets.
1 December 2024	The resident reported that there was a pest infestation in the carpets. He said that he had seen silverfish in a bedroom, and his family had been bitten by fleas. He said that several members of his family were immunocompromised and susceptible to infection.
5 December 2024	The landlord sent a pest controller who noted that there was a small residual flea problem in the carpet. The operative said that due to the health of the resident’s family it was not safe to treat the area with pesticides. They told the resident to continue to vacuum regularly and said that the problem should resolve.
7 December 2025	The resident contacted the landlord to ask that it remove the carpets from his home and dispose of them based on advice he’d received from a medical professional. The landlord told him that carpets were the tenant’s responsibility and that he had signed to take responsibility for them in the mutual exchange paperwork.
16 January 2025	The resident made his complaint to the landlord. He said he was not happy that the landlord would not agree to remove the carpets considering he was not the one to install them. He believed the landlord should have flagged the issue with the carpet at the original inspection or removed them. He asked the landlord to contribute toward the cost of replacing all carpets in the property.
22 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint. The resident responded to say that he had been cleaning the carpet but the problem remained, and that if he removed the carpets, he felt the landlord should dispose of them.
29 January 2025	The resident told the landlord that ticks from the carpet had bitten his daughter, and she contracted Lyme disease. He said that he was also considering legal action due to the impact on his family.
4 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that the resident was responsible for cleaning and removing the carpets as he signed a disclaimer when moving in. It also said that it attended to treat the fleas but was unable to use any strong chemicals to protect the health of the family. The resident escalated his complaint the following day as he felt the landlord had breached its health and safety responsibilities. He sent the landlord a copy of a specialist report which appeared to confirm the link between the Lyme disease and the carpet.
24 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response and did not uphold the complaint. It said that ticks are not common household pests so it could not provide treatment for them. It confirmed that maintenance and replacement of carpets and underlay are considered the tenant’s responsibility unless otherwise specified in the mutual agreement documents.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident came to the Ombudsman as he was not happy with the landlord’s position that it was not responsible for the carpets. He wants the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of replacing and disposing of the contaminated carpets.

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 the resident’s report of a pest infestation in the carpets
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

10. We are unable to investigate any causal link between the condition of the carpets and the resident’s daughter’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused.
11. If the resident wishes to pursue a claim for potential personal injury or effect on health it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim. 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.
12. The resident has another complaint open with this service relating to the overall condition of the property at the time of mutual exchange. For this reason, we will focus on the resident’s complaint about the condition of the carpets, and the landlord’s decision not to replace them. This will ensure the matter in the other complaint is investigated fairly.

What we have investigated

13. After the resident reported pests, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend within 5 working days to treat the infestation. When the pest controller found potential health risks from using chemical pesticides, they advised the resident on alternative measures instead. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice the pest controller gave as they would be more suitably qualified to make a treatment decision on flea removal.
14. Following the resident’s second report, he informed the landlord that the pests were ticks rather than fleas. The landlord said that ticks were not classed as household pests and therefore it could not provide treatment. The landlord’s definition of household pests includes rats, mice, daddy long-legs, silverfish, cockroaches, and bed bugs.
15. The British Pest Control Association states that ticks are not household pests but can enter homes on pets or humans from outside. For removal, they recommend contacting a pest controller who may use insecticides. Given the pest controller was aware of the family’s health conditions, it was reasonable that they did not consider chemical treatment for potential ticks. Again, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice the pest controller gave it.
16. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will follow up with residents 7 days after treatment. Although it did not carry out any treatment in this case, the landlord missed an opportunity to follow up with the resident.
17. We acknowledge that the resident was frustrated by the situation, and there was added stress due to his family’s health at the time. However, the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of pests and did what it could to resolve the infestation safely.
18. For the reasons above, there was no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s decision not to remove or replace the resident’s carpets
Finding	No maladministration

19. The landlord’s minimum lettable standard document states that it will deep clean carpets if they have previously been fitted and are in good condition. However, mutual exchanges are exempt from the minimum lettable standard because tenants choose to swap homes and accept them “as seen”. This means landlords only need to meet basic legal safety requirements rather than upgrading the property to lettable standards. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to leave the carpets in place between tenants.
20. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that the landlord remains responsible for all its standard obligations, but tenants are responsible for minor repairs. Internal decoration must be seen and accepted by the incoming tenant. It also says that it will inspect the property before the new tenant moves in.
21. In the inspection paperwork, the landlord listed the carpets as items agreed to pass from the outgoing to incoming tenant. The resident signed this inspection form.
22. The sign-up induction paperwork signed by both parties on 9 September 2024 states:
    1. By completing the mutual exchange, the resident accepts the property in its present condition as per the property inspection form.
    2. The landlord does not accept responsibility for, or clear any unwanted items left by the outgoing tenant.
23. For the reasons above we found no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
25. The landlord provided complaint responses which followed the requirements of the Code. It responded to the complaint points the resident raised. It provided a response within the right timescales. It also informed the resident he could bring his complaint to this Service if he remained unhappy with its response. As such we consider there is no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord kept detailed records, which helped it to direct the resident to the appropriate policies and signed forms during the complaint process.

Communication

27. The landlord set realistic expectations about its responsibilities following the mutual exchange. Its correspondence was clear throughout the complaint however it did not follow up with the resident after the pest control visit in line with its policy. It should ensure that it follows up with all residents after pest control visits regardless of whether a treatment is completed.