Estuary Housing Association Limited (202403576)

Decision
Case ID	202403576
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Estuary Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 June 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a rodent infestation at her property. The resident and her 7 children have vulnerabilities, including mental health needs, physical health needs, and neurodivergence. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Pest infestation and her request for reimbursement of costs incurred.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Pest infestation and the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred

5. The landlord failed to complete an inspection following the resident’s initial report of pests to establish the source and responsibility. It put the onus on the resident to resolve the issue. It delayed in considering the household’s vulnerabilities.

Handling of the complaint

6. The delays at both stages of the complaint procedure did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge and apologise for the delays in its complaint 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.

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 provided by a manager. 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 09 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,356 made up as follows: £926 in recognition of the quantifiable loss incurred by the resident. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the pest control issue. £30 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not set off against any debt owed to it. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 09 July 2026

  

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider implementing a comprehensive pest control policy. This would provide greater clarity for both staff and residents about how the landlord will respond to and resolve pest reports.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 January 2024	The resident complained that she had instructed her own pest control contractors on the advice of the landlord. The landlord had since arranged for pest control to go to her neighbour’s property. She explained she had vulnerable children and she did not feel the landlord had supported her. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the costs she had paid out for the contractors, which was £926.
12 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it would not reimburse the resident. It said this was in line with its repair standard that residents were responsible for pest control issues in the home. This included the garden. It was unaware it had instructed a pest control contractor for other residents in the street.
7 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2.
15 April 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said part of its stage 1 response was incorrect and it had instructed pest control on 15 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced inconvenience due to its handling of the pest control issue. It offered £430 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us there had not been any further issues with pests. She did not feel it was fair that she had paid almost £1,000 for pest control contractors and then the landlord had arranged it for her neighbour. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her the whole amount which she paid to contractors.

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 pest infestation and the resident’s request for reimbursement.
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident said the rats were coming from next door’s garden, which she said was full of rubbish. She also reported hearing rats in the walls of her property. The landlord has no record of the resident’s initial contact about this issue. This was a record-keeping failure.
8. The landlord told us the resident first reported the issue on 13 December 2023. However, in its stage 1 response, sent on 12 February 2024, it said the resident had contacted it earlier. It told her that pest control issues inside the home were her responsibility. The landlord does not have a stand-alone pest policy. Its repair policy says residents are responsible for pest control inside the property.
9. Our website sets out how the Ombudsman expects landlords to deal with reports of pests in a home or communal area. After a resident reports an issue involving pests, a landlord should undertake timely inspections of homes and affected areas. The landlord should not place the onus on the resident to sort the problem. Whilst the resident may have a part to play, they may not be the root cause and landlords should investigate the issue fully before deciding who is responsible.
10. In this case the landlord’s policy says it is not responsible for infestation inside the home. However, there is no evidence that the landlord undertook any investigation to determine that the problem arose from inside the home. The landlord could not reasonably conclude the resident was responsible when she first reported the issue because it had not inspected the property. This was a failing.
11. On the landlord’s advice, the resident instructed a pest control contractor who attended on 20 November 2023. The resident reported rats emerging from the drains. The contractor conducted a drain survey and baited the area but did not make any recommendations. As the issue persisted, the resident instructed another contractor, who attended on 6 December 2023. The resident reported hearing noises in her kitchen walls. The contractor found no internal evidence of rats but identified a damaged external air brick with teeth marks. The contractor baited both the air brick and beneath the kitchen units. At a follow-up visit on 13 December 2023, no internal bait had been taken, but there were signs of activity at the air brick. The contractor installed rat-proof netting to all air bricks and a one-way rat blocker valve in the front manhole. The resident paid a total of £926 for the 2 inspections and proofing works.
12. On 13 December 2023 the resident’s support worker raised concerns about vulnerable children living in the property. She said the home was clean and tidy, so this was not the cause of the pests. She said the resident had spent a significant amount of money trying to resolve the issue, which she believed the landlord should have addressed. She asked the landlord to reimburse the resident. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and asked her to send any information she had about the issue.
13. On 2 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say the issue was ongoing and that she had already spent almost £1,000 on it. The records show that around this time the landlord became aware that a neighbour living in the same row had reported the same issue.
14. On 16 January 2024 the landlord told the resident it had asked its repairs team to consider the household’s vulnerabilities. It then agreed, as a one-off, to send pest control to the resident and her neighbours. However, it would not reimburse the resident for the costs she had incurred. While this was a positive step, the landlord should have considered the household’s vulnerabilities sooner. It had been aware of the resident’s and her eldest child’s vulnerabilities since the start of the tenancy. This was a failing.
15. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended on 19 January 2024. Of the 3 properties inspected, 2, including the resident’s, were affected by pests. The contractor found broken air bricks at the neighbouring property and conducted proofing works there. It baited both properties and advised the resident and her neighbour to get in touch if they saw any further signs of rodents within the next 30 days. The landlord did not receive any further reports.
16. When considering the complaint, we assessed whether the landlord failed, whether this caused detriment, and whether it took reasonable steps to put matters right.
17. The landlord incorrectly advised the resident that pest control was her responsibility. It did so without first conducting an inspection to determine the source or cause of the problem. This was unreasonable given reports that the problem may have originated externally. Its failure to inspect meant the resident incurred significant costs for pest control services. Additionally, despite being aware of the household’s vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to take these into account at an early stage. Whilst it offered a limited, one-off intervention, it refused to reimburse the resident’s costs.
18. The landlord’s handling of the matter caused detriment to the resident. Its failure to inspect caused her distress and inconvenience. Had it done so it would have identified the proofing works and the resident would not have had to instruct her own contractors. This would have resolved the issue sooner and the resident would not have needed to raise the complaint. The landlord’s delay in considering the household’s vulnerabilities caused further distress and inconvenience. In this case, the resident was concerned her children were living in a property where there were rats.
19. The landlord tried to resolve matters through its complaint process. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered £430 in compensation. This is equal to the cost of the proofing works completed by the resident’s contractor. However, this did not adequately reflect the detriment caused in this case. We therefore find maladministration.
20. In line with our Compensation Guidance the landlord should compensate the resident for the unavoidable financial loss incurred as a direct result of its maladministration. She had to instruct and pay for her own pest contractors.
21. The landlord must pay the resident £926 for her pest control costs. We have also ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of this issue. This is in line with our Compensation Guidance for situations where the landlord attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. This amount also reflects the households’ vulnerabilities which meant they were more affected by the landlord’s inactions than others.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition.
23. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
24. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint 1 working day late and sent its response 2 working days late. This was not in line with its policy.
25. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on time. Its response was 1 working day late. This was not in line with its policy.
26. Both responses appropriately defined and responded to the issues raised by the resident. The content of the responses was adequate to meet the requirements of the Code. The responses were expressed in clear, plain language.
27. The delays outlined above had minimal impact on the overall outcome for the resident. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its complaint responses. The landlord also failed to identify any learning from the resident’s complaint. This leads to a finding of service failure. In line with our Compensation Guidance, an apology, learning, and compensation of £30 are appropriate.

Learning

28. The landlord failed to recognise any learning from the resident’s complaint. It is important that landlords look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether it can make any service improvements from the learning identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s records were incomplete. It could not provide us with a copy of the resident’s initial report. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively.

Communication

30. The landlord demonstrated effective and proactive communication with the resident for the period we have investigated.