Orbit Housing Association Limited (202426324)

Background

1. The resident lives in her home with her 2 children. She told the landlord that she had a pest infestation in her loft and soon began seeing pest droppings in other areas of her home. She told the landlord about her concerns about the potential impact on her children. The landlord raised works to address the issue, however as this continued, it temporarily moved the resident from the property. It confirmed that it had not seen any further pest activity in May 2025, but it is unclear if it completed proofing works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns of a rodent infestation in her property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a rodent infestation in her property.
   2. Reasonable redress offered with the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s concerns of a rodent infestation in her property.

4. There were delays in the landlord taking robust action in resolving the situation which saw it ongoing for a significant amount of time. There was also poor communication by both the landlord and its contractors with the resident. It offered a significant amount of compensation which would have been proportionate to the failings it found during its complaints process had it followed up on its promises. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord has completed the proofing works it said it would in its stage 2 response. As such there were further delays, and it appeared its communication issues continued despite saying that it had learned from them in both its responses.

The complaint

5. There were delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process. It asked for an extension at stage 1 but did not show it did at stage 2. It offered compensation but did not explicitly name what its complaint handling failings were, which was a shortcoming. However, the level of compensation offered was proportionate to the failings found.

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.

6. The evidence provided shows that there were several delays with the landlord acting around the resident’s concerns. While the landlord did not provide any evidence, both the resident and the landlord have not disputed that she raised her concerns in December 2023/ January 2024. However, the first entry around raising works was in April 2024, 4 to 5 months later. The landlord did not provide us with a pest control policy but instead referred us to its repairs policy. The 4 to 5 month delay was not in keeping with the 28-calendar day timeframe provided in this policy around routine repairs.
7. The evidence also shows that there were significant issues around both the landlord’s and its contractors communication with the resident. It often told her it would contact her, but it did not do so. On some occasions, due to lack of robust updates from the landlord, she sought information from its contractor, and they referred the resident back to the landlord.
8. This demonstrates poor internal communication, as both the landlord and its contractor should coordinate who is responsible for providing updates. We saw evidence of this through the resident’s communications with the landlord on 15 July 2024 where she expressed frustration at the lack of updates, having to push for appointments before it acted, requesting communication over a period of 4 months and only receiving 1 telephone call. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable.
9. Further within her email to the landlord on 15 July 2024, the resident raised concerns about health and safety due to her young children. We have not seen that the landlord took any consideration of this. It became aware that the situation could become potentially harmful to her young children, as such it should have considered whether this meant it needed to change its approach, and take urgent action. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was inappropriate. This was especially important as the resident made it clear there was an infant who could pick up the droppings which could then lead to significant health concerns if ingested.
10. The landlord also failed to consider whether the situation affected the resident’s enjoyment of the property. She specifically told it that due to her concerns, she had left the property and was “sofa surfing” with her children. This was another opportunity for it to take prompt and decisive action, review its approach to resolving the situation and consider if it remained appropriate, which it failed to do at the time.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord committed to completing proofing works once it resolved the pest issue. It also committed to communicate and keep the resident updated and complete a drain inspection. We can see that it raised works for a drain survey on 12 August 2024, and it confirmed it had completed the drainage survey, but it is unclear when. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping as its records should hold accurate information on when it completed actions it committed to.
12. We can also see from its records that it explained to the resident on 24 July 2024 that its contractor was due to attend that day to remove droppings, bait, and proof the loft area to stop pest access, and this was appropriate. It inspected on 8 August 2024, but its records do not provide any information on its findings raising further questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
13. The landlord said it had attended on 12 August 2024, and found no infestation, and there was no access on 9 September 2024. However, it noted pest activity and replenished bait on 13 September 2024, and its stage 2 response confirmed that the property still had a live pest issue as of 10 October 2024. It acknowledged the delay in the works. However, it did not acknowledge that within this period, the resident had told the landlord that she saw evidence of pest activity in her kitchen.
14. This raises further health and safety concerns related to food storage and hygiene. The stage 2 response also confirmed that the poor communication continued with the resident. For example, its contractor attending the resident’s property without notice for appointments. It also concluded around its own communication that it had not consistently and effectively spoken with her throughout the period. It offered the resident further compensation to what it offered at stage 1 and said it had agreed to move her temporarily to a hotel due to the issues. While it appropriately recognised its failings and looked to put them right, this was insufficient action, as it continued to perpetuate the same behaviours it had apologised for at stage 1. This contributed to the resident’s concerns that it was not taking the situation seriously and kept its promises.
15. In total the landlord awarded the resident compensation of £1,420 across its complaint responses. This was in recognition of the time, trouble, inconvenience, poor communication, updates, and failed appointments. This was also in line with its compensation guidance, which places its offers within the high impact, and high effort category for the resident in trying to resolve the issue. While appropriate that it recognised its failings and looked to put them right, after the completion of the complaints process, it appears the landlord continued with the same behaviour.
16. The evidence suggests that pest activity within the property continued. The landlord’s records show that it set down new bait and traps on 19 November 2024. It identified more rodent activity on 20 December 2024, it monitored the situation from 17 January 2025, and signs of this were present until 30 May 2025. There is no evidence to suggests that these were unavoidable delays.
17. We understand that issues of pests can be difficult to resolve, however the length of time taken to resolve this issue falls significantly outside of the 28 day timescales in its policy. It remained outstanding between December 2023/January 2024 and May 2025, a period of between 16 to 17 months and this was inappropriate. The landlord had a duty under Section 9a, 10 and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to identify the hazard presented by the pests to the family, and resolve the issue, and complete any necessary repairs within a reasonable time, and it failed to do so.
18. The resident also explained to us that she continued to receive little communication from the landlord. The records it provided us also do not evidence any communication with her following the complaint about the ongoing pest concerns. We have also seen no evidence that it raised the proofing works to date. Based on this, we found the landlord failed to apply the learning it suggested it had gained from the complaint, and we also have no evidence it completed the works it said it would. As such, we consider the compensation offered was not proportionate to recognise the overall impact also caused by the further failures and delays.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy follows the 5 working day acknowledgements for complaints, and 10 and 20 working day requirements for responses at stage 1 and 2 respectively. This mirrors the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. It also allows for extension requests if needed. It did not meet these standards, acknowledging the stage 1 complaint 9 working days late on 16 July 2024 and stage 2, 26 working days late on 6 September 2024.
20. The landlord also delayed its responses. Although it requested an extension for stage 1, its letter dated 10 October 2024 said it would respond by 30 July 2024, making the timing of its request unclear. The stage 1 response was 8 working days late but aligned with policy by requesting an extension. We have seen no evidence it requested an extension for the delay at stage 2, which was 40 working days late, contrary to policy.
21. The landlord admitted failings but did not specify them, which was inappropriate. It offered £200 compensation for complaint handling failures, exceeding its policy limit of £150. Its policy suggests it makes such payments where there are significant issues with delays and poor correspondence. The offer aligns with our remedies guidance for cases without permanent impact.
22. As the landlord did not clearly identify its failings, we consider this an additional shortcoming with its response. However, its compensation offer was proportionate in recognising the impact on the resident of its complaint handling delays.

Learning

23. Where vulnerabilities are identified, the landlord should ensure it considers these in line with the situation. This will allow it to risk assess whether it needs to change its approach to the situation based on any potential impact to the resident.
24. The landlord could benefit from identifying what it believes its complaint handling failings are within its response to justify any compensation ordered for such failings.
25. The landlord should ensure there is adequate follow up following both stages of its complaints process to make sure it has complied with any assurances made. Doing so could avoid unnecessary escalations, unnecessary complaints, delays and most importantly dissatisfaction from residents, bettering the service it provides.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate records of appointments to ensure it knows what works remain outstanding and when it needs to attend to a resident’s property for any follow on works.
27. It should also ensure it maintains accurate records to ensure that it communicates effectively with residents and provides timely updates.

Communication

28. The landlord should ensure it maintains prompt communication with residents and contractors where there are outstanding issues it needs to complete works on and respond to. This will allow it to manage resident’s expectations around any delays, and outstanding works. It should also ensure it is clear who is responsible for communicating with residents between it and its contractors.