Salix Homes Limited (202529353)

Background

1. The resident lives in a cottage flat with her partner and 2 children aged 6 and 2 years old. The resident is pregnant with her third child and informed us and the landlord that she had various vulnerabilities including PTSD, anxiety and depression. The resident said that she had had mice in her property since she moved to it in September 2021, despite both the landlord’s and her own attempts (with private contractors) to remove them. The landlord and its contractors have made several attempts to remove the pests and pest-proof the property; however mice remain in the property at the time of this investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Pest infestation

5. While the landlord took several actions to address the pest issue, including instructing a pest controller and arranging pest-proofing works, it did not meet its policy timescales for some stages and it failed to take any steps to contact the resident’s neighbour (or take any further action), where the landlord believed the pests were entering from. This left the matter unresolved for an extended period of time, including up to the time of this investigation.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy by issuing timely stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

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.

7. The resident said, in her complaint, that the mice had been present in her property since she moved into it in 2021. The landlord said that it had one report in October 2023 and another on 23 May 2025, with no other reports preceding this or in the intervening periods. The landlord’s records support this. This investigation will only consider the matters leading up to the resident’s complain in June 2025 and will not consider the historical report of pests in 2023 as this is over 12 months from the complaint and there is considerable gap in the reporting.
8. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it will instruct a pest controller and surveyor to attend within 5 working days of report to treat the property and assess its condition, for example any holes or damage which might permit pest entry.
9. The landlord’s records show that its pest controller first attended on 5 June 2025, which was 8 working days after the resident’s initial report and therefore outside the landlord’s policy timescales and was a failing. A follow up visit took place on 18 June 2025, and a final visit was booked by telephone with the resident for 20 June 2025, however there was no access from the resident.
10. The landlord’s surveyor first attended on 5 June 2025 which was not within the 5-day timescale in its policy and this was a failing. This delayed the landlord’s follow-on works and left the resident and her family potentially at detriment with the pests in the property for a longer period. During this appointment, the resident advised that she believed mice were entering her property via a neighbour’s property. Following the surveyor visit, works were raised to pest-proof the property internally and externally. The external works were started on 16 June 2025, with a follow up appointment booked for 20 June 2025, however there was no access on this date. This appointment was rebooked for 24 July 2025, as the resident requested a postponement due to her mental health. This was reasonable given the resident’s request.
11. The resident reported further, ongoing pests on 8 August 2025 and the landlord’s surveyor and pest controller were booked to attend within its policy timescales, however the resident was out of the country, and these were rebooked for 1 September and 12 August 2025 respectively.
12. Further pest control appointments were due on 2 September and 5 September 2025, however the resident rescheduled the first appointment and provided no access at the second. The pest contractor closed the case and advised the landlord that the issue may persist if the treatments could not be completed.
13. The surveyor noted during their visit on 1 September 2025 that all internal and external pest proofing had been completed, and the likely source of the pests was another neighbouring property. The surveyor raised follow up works for filling holes in the resident’s property on 4 September 2025, however these were delayed due to repeated no access appointment. The resident told the landlord that she was not aware of these appointments and asked, on each occasion, for them to be rescheduled. These works were ultimately completed on 20 November 2025, following 3 no access appointments.
14. The landlord identified in its stage 2 complaint response that the confirmation text messages had not been sent to the resident, and this may have contributed to the no access appointments and provided general frustration to the resident. It was positive to note that the landlord apologised for this, offered £100 compensation and put practical steps in place to prevent a reoccurrence of this moving forward, including an email fallback when text messages were not sent. However, this was not sufficient to acknowledge fully the impact of such significant issue remaining unresolved for prolonged period.
15. On 26 June 2025 the landlord appointed a contractor to complete a deep clean of the resident’s cooker, following concerns that she had raised about hygiene and droppings in the cooker. The contractor advised that it did not undertake cooker cleans and, in any event, would have recommended a replacement cooker due to the possibility of contamination in areas which were not possible to clean. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action on this recommendation, or pursued other avenues of cleaning the cooker and this was a significant failing given the unsanitary conditions being reported, particularly given there were 2 young children in the property.
16. As early as 5 June 2025, the landlord was aware that the pests may have been entering from another property in the building, which was owned privately. While it is appreciated that the landlord does not have the ability to enter or assess another privately owned property, given the pests remain at the time of this investigation it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider further action.
17. This may have included writing to the neighbouring property, reporting the matter to environmental health or potentially taking legal advice. There is no evidence that the landlord did any of these things, and this was a failing which has left a potential cause of the pest infestation unresolved over an extended period.
18. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has delayed in resolving an issue over an extended period of time, particularly where this causes distress, inconvenience and additional time and trouble for the resident. In ordering a total of £600 in compensation, we have considered the significant and long-term impacts on the household, particularly given that 2 young children were present in the property. We have also included the £100 compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response related to issues with appointment confirmation text messages.

19. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In line with the Code and its complaint policy the landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. The policy says that residents should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
20. The records show that the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 June 2025, which was 5 working days after receipt. It then provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 26 June 2025.
    2. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 8 September 2025, which was 5 working days after receipt. It then provided its stage 2 response 20 working days later on 6 October 2025.
21. On this basis, the landlord’s complaint responses were timely and addressed each of the matters raised by the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s case records in this case were clear, detailed and well maintained across the complaint, repair and pest‑control history, however its systems did not accurately reflect the resident’s contact details which prevented appointment booking text messages being sent.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was generally timely and responsive to the resident’s needs, however its appointment booking text messages were not sent to the resident correctly and this caused repeated no access appointments and rebooking.