Sanctuary Housing Association (202348022)

Background

1. The resident shared information about household vulnerabilities with the landlord, including that 4 children lived at the property. On 3 January 2023 she sent a letter from her GP to the landlord, in which her GP described a cockroach infestation in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of a pest infestation.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation.
4. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord delayed acting on the resident’s report of a cockroach infestation by 43 days. This delay caused avoidable distress to the household, particularly as young children lived at the property. Although the landlord later resolved the infestation, it failed to demonstrate urgency at the outset. It also failed to acknowledge or explain the delay in its complaint responses.
6. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered compensation, which was enough to put things right.

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.

7. In January 2023 the landlord became aware of a cockroach infestation in the property when the resident shared a letter from her GP. The landlord has not got a pest control policy but shared guidance with us on how it would deal with such matters. It says that it is responsible for dealing with cockroach infestation where the resident lived.
8. There is no fixed timeframe for responding to cockroach infestations. However, cockroaches multiply quickly, pose health risks, and fall within hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It is therefore reasonable to expect landlords to act promptly and with urgency when receiving reports of infestations of this nature.
9. In this case, the landlord raised a pest control job 43 days after the resident reported the issue. Although appointing a pest control contractor was reasonable, the landlord did not act with sufficient urgency. A delay of 43 days was excessive, particularly given the presence of young children in the household.
10. We recognise that, once appointed, the pest control contractor attended within 2 days and treated the infestation. The contractor returned 10 days later to check the effectiveness of the treatment. The landlord received no further reports from the resident. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the treatment was successful.
11. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge or explain the earlier delay in acting on her report. It said it checked its records and found no reports of infestation at the property or within the block in the previous 6 months. Despite this, it did not recognise that it failed to act promptly on the resident’s report in January 2023. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge its failings and put matters right.
12. In line with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the impact of its failings on the resident and her family. This payment reflects the adverse effect on them and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its shortcomings. The resident described constant cleaning, discarded food, frightened children avoiding using the bathroom, and distress to the household. This also reflects that the landlord eradicated the infestation within 6 weeks of the resident reporting the issue.

13. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe. In such cases, it would explain the reasons for the delay.
14. The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaints at both stages. While this was reasonable, it issued its stage 1 response 16 days outside its published timeframe. It did not inform the resident of the delay or agree a revised response date. This was unreasonable and did not comply with its complaint policy or the Code.
15. At stage 2, the landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond and explained why. While positive, it extended the response period twice, exceeding its policy’s maximum 10 day extension. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 41 days after acknowledgement. This exceeded its published timeframe by 11 days, after applying the maximum permitted extension. Although we saw no evidence of significant impact on the resident, the landlord did not act in line with its complaint policy
16. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings during the complaint process. It apologised and offered £300 compensation in line with its compensation policy for delayed responses at both stages. This is also in line with our compensation guidance for delayed responses which affected timely resolution of the dispute. We therefore conclude that this compensation was sufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. On receipt of complaints, it is important that the landlord identifies any new issues raised by residents and promptly refers them to the relevant team. In this case, the landlord should have immediately raised a job to address the pest infestation. This would have avoided delays and reduced the distress experienced by the resident.

Communication

18. We recognise that landlords may need extra time to respond to complaints in some cases. In those circumstances, landlords must inform residents, explain the reasons, and agree a revised timeframe in line with the Code. In this case, the landlord should have told the resident at stage 1 that it required more time. Staff should understand and apply the complaint policy consistently to build trust and demonstrate that the landlord takes concerns seriously.