Acis Group Limited (202501336)

Decision
Case ID	202501336
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Acis Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The property is an end terrace house in a row of 4. It has a water tank and Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system in the loft. The middle 2 properties of the row are privately owned.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A pest infestation.
2. Loft repairs to the:
  1. Water tank
  2. Insulation
  3. PIV
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of loft repairs to the water tank, insulation and PIV.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of a pest infestation

The landlord was initially slow to react to reports of rats in the property. It put the responsibility on the resident and local authority Environmental Health to address the situation, which was unreasonable given its obligations under the tenancy agreement.

Landlord’s handling of loft repairs

There were avoidable delays in all of the loft repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord missed opportunities to raise the complaint at an earlier date. Its stage 2 response was also a missed opportunity to consider further compensation.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,340.37. This is made up of the landlord’s stage 2 offer, plus an additional £750 from this complaint. This is made up of: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pest infestation. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of loft repairs. £50 in recognition of the service failure identified in its complaint handling. £330.37 refund of goods purchased by the resident to try and resolve the situation. £60 compensation offered at stage 1 for the dehumidifier use. £400 additional compensation for the dehumidifier use between 25 March 2025 to 13 June 2025. This has been worked out at 80 days x £5 per day in line with the landlord’s stage 2 offer. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

28 May 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £1,340.37. This is made up of the landlord’s stage 2 offer, plus an additional £750 from this complaint. This is made up of:

£300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pest infestation.
£200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of loft repairs.
£50 in recognition of the service failure identified in its complaint handling.
£330.37 refund of goods purchased by the resident to try and resolve the situation.
£60 compensation offered at stage 1 for the dehumidifier use.
£400 additional compensation for the dehumidifier use between 25 March 2025 to 13 June 2025. This has been worked out at 80 days x £5 per day in line with the landlord’s stage 2 offer.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.

No later than

28 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint after initially reporting rats at the property on 20 January 2025. She said: She was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with the infestation. The lid had been off the water tank in the loft and the water had been contaminated by rats. The PIV was circulating contaminated air contaminated into the house. And Environmental Health told her the filter would not filter out germs. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication.
24 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, where it upheld the complaint. It said: It sincerely apologised for the service the resident had received. It should have acted sooner to prevent the issue escalating. It would monitor all outstanding actions and the resident would be kept updated. It offered £590.37 compensation. This was made up of a £200 high-impact payment, £330.37 to reimburse the resident for goods bought to try and resolve the situation, and £60 towards dehumidifier use made up of £5 per day to the 24 March 2025. It was reviewing its pest control approach. The resident escalated the complaint the same day.
8 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, where it also upheld the complaint. It said: It had apologised for the delays in the initial assessment of the issue. It was using a different pest contractor. It had replaced the water tank with a tank rats should be unable to access. It considered the level of risk, in relation to damaged health by leaving the loft hatch open, to be ‘extremely minimal’. It switched the PIV off as a precaution and it was ‘difficult to say’ whether any contaminant from the loft would have entered the property and impacted on their health. It had arranged for a pest control company to visit, offered temporary accommodation, turned off the PIV, provided a dehumidifier and payment for its use, renewed the loft water tank, provided a temporary water heater, contacted the local authority Environmental Health team to assist with rat ingress in the privately owned properties in the row, inspected the property, and completed drain surveys at 3 of the 4 properties in the row. The £590.37 compensation offered in the stage 1 response was reasonable and in line with policy.
26 June 2025	The resident contacted us. She said: She had been told the hot water supply [from the water tank in the loft] had a filter, however she had since been advised this was not the case. The PIV was left on and she was told this was safe. But the manufacturer advised it should be turned off. The contractors left the loft hatch open when the loft insulation was removed which caused dust and rat waste to go around the house. The pest contractor said a reinfestation was likely.

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

The resident also told us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health, and the health of her family. She was particularly concerned about the water tank and air circulated into the property from the PIV. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her family’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her, or her family’s health was affected by any action, lack of action, or failure by the landlord.

Complaint	Landlord’s response to a pest infestation.
Finding	Service failure

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord:
1. Is responsible to keep the structure and outside of the home in good repair. This includes the drains, roof, and internal walls.
2. Will carry out all repairs within… reasonable timescales… in consultation with residents.
The landlord’s repairs policy in use at the time said residents are responsible for “pest control/removal [including] rats.”
The resident initially reported rats in the property on 20 January 2025. She said she was told she would have to “deal with the issue.” The resident visited the landlord’s office 3 days later. The landlord noted the local authority Environmental Health team had also been contacted, so it would wait for the outcome of the visit. Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 18 February 2025 and said:
1. “Some responsibility must be taken by [the landlord] to fix… [structural/drain] faults.”
2. The landlord should check the integrity of the party wall.

We acknowledge the landlord’s initial response to the reports of rats was in line with policy at the time. And this policy has since been updated. However, the lack of action and failure to consider inspecting the property structure, was unreasonable.

An internal email on 20 February 2025 said a work order should be raised to “seal any entry points up in the loft.. with wire wool and cement.” There was no evidence a repair was raised. However, the evidence showed the landlord:
1. Raised a work order on 21 February 2025 for a pest contractor to bait and advise where rats were accessing the property. The resident said the first pest contractor had visited by 26 February 2025, which was prompt. However, it was unclear exactly when this was.
2. Arranged for a drain survey of the resident’s property which was completed promptly on 26 February 2025 and found no major defects.
3. Tried to contact residents of the other 3 properties in the terraced row to survey their drains on 5 March 2025.
4. Arranged for the pest contractor to visit a second time on 7 March 2025. However, there was an incident with spilled bait. The landlord visited the property the same day and agreed to:
  1. Instruct another pest contractor.
  2. Pay for the drain surveys of the other 3 properties, despite 2 being privately owned.
  3. Clean up the bait, which it did promptly the same day.
5. Arranged for:
  1. A second pest contractor to visit on 12 March 2025 to bait the property and drains.
  2. Drain surveys for 2 out of the 3 neighbouring properties, which were completed on 21 March 2025. It also emailed the Environmental Health team to try and contact the resident’s neighbour to arrange the final drain survey the same day.
  3. The second pest contractor to visit on 24 March 2025. The contractor noted “no bait had been taken in the drain and there was no activity in the loft.”
  4. The second pest contractor to visit on 7 April 2025. The contractor noted “the bait in the drain was untouched and no activity detected in the loft.”
  5. The second pest contractor to visit on 14 April 2025 and noted “no bait had been taken and no rodent activity.”

The steps taken between 21 February 2025 and 14 April 2025 showed the landlord was proactively taking steps to address and investigate the pest issue at the property, which was reasonable.

The second pest contractor sent its end of treatment report to the landlord on 22 April 2025. It said:
1. “There have been no rodents present… for the 35 days we have conducted this program.
2. The rat issue [raised] in January… has… subsided.”

The landlord is entitled to act on the expert advice of suitably qualified staff and contractors. It was therefore reasonable it emailed the resident 2 days later to update her of the findings.

Given the landlord’s initial delays and failure to consider inspecting the property, the circumstances for a maladministration decision apply. However, the landlord’s actions after 20 February 2025 and offer of redress made during the complaints process show it took some steps to put things right. We have therefore found service failure instead. That being said, we have ordered an additional £100 compensation (to the £200 offered in the complaint response). This is in line with our compensation guidance to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of loft repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy in use at the time said:
1. Reactive repairs will be completed in an average of 10 working days.
2. The maximum expected duration of such repairs [is] 28 days.

Loft water tank

Environmental Health emailed the landlord on 18 February 2025 and said rats can be seen around the water storage tank. The landlord noted the resident was worried about the water being contaminated as the lid was off the water tank on 20 February 2025. Internal emails that day said:
1. “The cold drinking water usually comes via the main feed to the house.
2. [Or if not, the water tank] should have a water-kit fitted if it is stored water that feeds the cylinder.”

The landlord could have considered raising a water tank repair or testing the water quality. However, it did neither. There was also no evidence the landlord updated the resident to provide reassurance. These were failings and led to the formal complaint 6 days later.

The landlord visited the resident on 3 March 2025 following the complaint. It raised a work order to replace the water tank the same day, which was a positive step.
It was unclear what prompted the landlord to provide a water heater/tea urn. However, the resident said this arrived on 21 March 2025. This was a reasonable step to minimise the impact on the resident. The landlord then used its stage 1 complaint response to say it would replace the water tank. The resident replied the same day and said she did not have any “safe hot running water.” After no response, she chased again on 27 March 2025. The landlord’s contractor attended on 31 March 2025 to fit the water tank. However, could not complete the work as not enough insulation was removed. The insulation was removed promptly the next day and the new water tank was fitted on 2 April 2025.
Overall, the landlord took 30 days to replace the water tank. While this was only slightly over the maximum expected duration for a repair, it could have been completed sooner. The resident was also left without running hot water for at least 2 months. We acknowledge the landlord took steps to mitigate the impact on the resident. However, it:
1. Failed to consider compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
2. Missed opportunities to raise water tank repairs or inspect the tank on 20 January 2025 and 18 February 2025.
3. Delayed:
  1. Raising the repair between 18 February 2025 and 3 March 2025.
  2. Providing the water heater.

Loft insulation

The landlord raised a work order to remove the soiled loft insulation on 19 March 2025. The contractor attended on 24 March 2025, in line with policy. The resident complained the contractor left the loft hatch open “leaving fibre glass and rat waste to fall freely into the property” the same day. After no action the resident chased on 27 March 2025.
The landlord raised another work order on 31 March 2025 to remove the loft insulation. Its contractor attended promptly on 1 April 2025 and left the soiled insulation in bags in the loft.
The resident told the landlord she was using more oil to heat the property due to the lack of insulation on 7 April 2025. The evidence showed the landlord considered temporary insulation, which was reasonable, but decided this was not an option. There were then delays as the landlord noted it would not install loft insulation until the pest contractor had finished. The final pest contractor visit was 15 April 2025, however the contractor did not send the report through until 22 April 2025, a week later.
The removal of the old loft insulation and loft clean was booked for 19 May 2025, however the contractor failed to attend, which caused the resident inconvenience. The evidence suggests this was completed on 30 May 2025. Overall, the resident was left without loft insulation for almost 2 months. Some of the delays could have been avoided had the landlord:
1. Chased it’s pest contractor for the final report between 15 and 22 April 2025.
2. Been more proactive in arranging the new loft insulation between 22 April 2025 and 19 May 2025.

Loft PIV

The resident raised concerns with the PIV blowing “contaminated air” into the property from the loft when she raised her complaint. The landlord visited 5 days later and noted the resident wanted the PIV switched off. It raised a work order on 5 March 2025 and the PIV was switched off promptly the same day.
The resident called the landlord on 10 March 2025 concerned about the moisture build up in the property. The landlord’s notes show it agreed to provide a dehumidifier 3 days later. This was a reasonable step to take.
Internal emails from the end of April 2025 show the landlord decided it would install the loft insulation, then service and turn the PIV back on, which was reasonable. The landlord noted the PIV needed new filters on 7 May 2025, which were ordered 2 days later. The evidence suggests the new loft insulation was then installed on 30 May 2025, however the PIV was not switched on until 13 June 2025, 2 weeks later. Overall, the resident was without a PIV from 5 March 2025 to 13 June 2025, over 3 months. We acknowledge the landlord took steps to mitigate this by providing, and paying for, a dehumidifier. However, the landlord failed to:
1. Consider providing a dehumidifier once the PIV was switched off between 5 March 2025 and 12 March 2025, a period of a week.
2. Acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by the PIV running between 20 January 2025 and 5 March 2025.

Summary

We acknowledge that overall, the landlord took steps to mitigate the impact of the loft repairs to the resident. And it offered the resident temporary accommodation on at least 3 occasions which the resident declined. The landlord has also made some attempt to put things right. But the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. A finding of maladministration is made, and an order for additional £200 compensation is made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the loft repairs between 18 February 2025 and 13 June 2025. We have also ordered the landlord pay for the running of the dehumidifier from 25 March 2025 to 13 June 2025.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days.
3. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
The evidence showed the landlord received an email from the local authority Environmental Health team on 3 February 2025. The email said the local authority had “received a complaint… about rats within the premises.” There was no evidence the landlord took any action, which was unreasonable.
Internal landlord notes from 20 February 2025 also make reference to a “complaint that the water tank has no cover and rats are getting into the tank.” However, there was no evidence the landlord raised a complaint.
After the resident complained on 26 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged the complaint promptly. It was also positive it went out to visit the resident on 3 March 2025. The landlord sent a complaint extension on 5 March 2025 and said the resident should receive a reply by 25 March 2025. The stage 1 response was sent 18 working days after the complaint was logged. Given the extension, this was reasonable. The landlord also acknowledged the stage 2 escalation promptly and it was positive that the landlord visited the resident on 3 April. The stage 2 complaint response was sent on 8 April 2025, 11 working days after the escalation, in line with policy.
However the stage 2 complaint response:
1. Put the responsibility back onto the local authority to resolve the rat issue, when the landlord is responsible for the building structure.
2. Was a missed opportunity to clarify its position in relation to ensuring all ingress points were blocked.
3. Could have considered compensation for:
  1. The lack of hot water between 26 February 2025 and 21 March 2025.
  2. The ongoing distress and inconvenience.

Given the missed opportunities raising a complaint, and the above points. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay £50 compensation, in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Since this complaint, the landlord have updated its repairs policy (2025) for when pests are reported. This is a positive step and good example of learning from the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were of a reasonable standard.

Communication

39. The landlord’s communication could have been better with the resident. There were a number of occasions where the resident had to chase for updates.