Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202450518)

Decision
Case ID	202450518
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thirteen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 October 2025

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow which she has lived in since January 2015. The resident has told us that she has a range of health issues, these affect her mobility. In raising her complaint, the resident’s neighbour has supported her and acted as her representative. For clarity, within the report, the resident and her representative are described as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of a sink hole in the back garden.
   2. Reports of a pest infestation.
   3. A request for adaptations to the garden path.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of a sink hole in the back garden.
5. There was service failure in its handling of the reports of a pest infestation.
6. There was no maladministration in its handling of the request for adaptations to the garden path or in its complaint handling.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of a sink hole

8. The landlord raised repairs at once on receiving the resident’s reports of a sink hole in the garden. It did not, however, act to provide reassurance to the resident that there was no defect or subsidence in her garden. An earlier inspection by its surveyor could have provided this. It did not keep a clear record of its inspection which led to a dispute between the parties as to the content of the discussion and the outcomes agreed.

Handling of reports of a pest infestation

9. The landlord did not act on the recommendations of its pest control contractor to carry out works to the loft space of the property. This was due to a failure in its communication with the contractor.

Handling of a request for adaptations

10. The landlord correctly referred the resident’s request for an adaptation to the paving at her home to occupational therapy. Once this was completed it raised works orders for the recommended repairs to be done.

Complaint handling

11. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the delay in raising follow on orders related to the hole in the rear garden. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to follow up on its pest control contractor’s comments about subsidence at the property. £75 as offered by the landlord as an outcome in its stage 2 complaint.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 November 2025
3	Inspection Order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an appointment for a suitably qualified person to inspect the property to find if there are any signs of subsidence. The landlord must ensure that produces a written report with photographs as an outcome to this inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that it completes the inspection by the due date. A copy of the report must be provided to both us and the resident as evidence that it has completed this inspection.	No later than 28 November 2025

 

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to confirm that her property is now free from pests and that it has completed the adaptations to her home to her satisfaction. It is further recommended that it confirm with the resident that there are no outstanding repairs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 March 2025	The resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In this she said that: In December 2024 she had made an urgent call to the landlord to report a sink hole in her back garden. The landlord had covered this with a board but had taken no further action. She felt it had ignored her communication on the issue. The surveyor who attended in February 2025 had confirmed that the ground was hollow and that the levels in the garden had dropped. This was a defect following earlier underpinning of the property. The surveyor was to arrange for a camera team to inspect the drains, but it had not done this. She had experienced a rodent infestation. The landlord’s pest controller had condemned the loft space and told her that it should be cleaned, and the insulation replaced. She was disabled and needed level access within the garden. This had caused her unnecessary stress.
11 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It noted that she had referred to her health issues and said that it did not have a record of these. It further set out what it had done and said: In had attended on the same day that the resident reported the sink hole on 12 December 2024. Its workman had placed a board over the hole. A surveyor had reviewed the photographs provided. It said that it was not a sink hole. Its maintenance team had arranged to check for any possible leaks, and it did not find any. It believed that the hole was due to the removal of a stake put in to keep concrete in place. It had raised a works order on 13 December 2024 to fill in the hole. It had then cancelled the works order at the request of the resident, as she wanted a surveyor to inspect. A surveyor attended on 12 February 2025. It had made a referral to occupational therapy in response to the resident’s request that it widen her path. It had also raised a repair to resecure external handrails. It cancelled this at the resident’s request as she said that she was waiting for further ground works. It had raised a works order on 5 March 2025 for the drain survey. It apologised that it had not done this earlier. Its surveyor had not noted that the ground was hollow. It further responded to the resident’s report that it had reinstated the front garden poorly following the underpinning works. It said that it had relayed the artificial grass “as best it could” as this had been laid on top of the existing garden. It noted its pest contractor had been attending the property since 22 January 2025, but it had no record that it had condemned the loft space. It apologised that it had not responded to all correspondence within its target of 5 days. It was confident that aside from the drain survey, it had raised and attended to all other works.
11 March 2025	The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its response and that she intended to contact us. This she did on 12 March 2025.
14 March 2025	The resident replied to the landlord, expressing her dissatisfaction with its response to her complaint. She said that the surveyor had told her that he would arrange works. These included taking up and renewing concrete, renewing the manhole surround and cover. He also discussed with her the levelling of the front garden, including widening her front gate. She felt let down. Further she said that the pest control contractor has issued a report to the landlord about the works needed to her loft. She said that she believed that there were defects in her garden following the underpinning work and that the landlord’s response was just “passing the buck”. She said that the occupational therapist had directed her back to the landlord.
1 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had changed part of its initial decision and offered her £75 compensation for its failure to deal with the clearance of her loft. It said that: It was satisfied that there was not a structural issue or a leak at her property that had caused the hole in her garden. It had arranged to fill in the hole, but the resident had declined the work. It confirmed its position and said that it needed to fill the hole. It had been unable to complete the drains survey as the manhole was not accessible. It asked the resident to arrange to remove the astro turf and decking covering this and tell it when she had done so. Its pest control contractor had attended to deal with both rats and mice. It provided a table of the contractor’s feedback. The last visit on 18 March 2025 confirmed that the property was clear of pest activity. It apologised for its error at stage 1. Its pest contractor had asked it to clear the loft space and replace the insulation. It had now raised an order for this to be done. Further it said that reference to subsidence in the pest control contractors report was the contractor’s opinion and not that of its surveyor. The information included at stage 1 about the need to involve occupational therapy for adaptations to the garden was correct. It acknowledged that its surveyor had discussed widening the path but that it had said this needed an occupational therapy referral. It had not changed its decision on this point.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 initially on 2 April 2025 and again on 23 April 2025. Having first contacted us in March 2025, she copied her responses to us and asked that we investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord’s response was inaccurate and that she felt that its surveyor had lied to her. She said that pests remained in her property and that the occupational therapist had said that they would not get involved due to the defects from the subsidence work.

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	Reports of a sink hole in the back garden
Finding	Service failure

12. The resident first raised concerns about a hole appearing in her garden in December 2024. The landlord’s repair records describe this as the “size of a dinner plate” and about a foot in depth. On receiving the resident’s report, the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the hole and cover it with wood for safety. It then raised a works order to fill in the hole. It further checked that there were no leaks associated with the appearance of the hole. Its response was both timely and appropriate.
13. The resident expressed her concern about the appearance of the hole and did not want the landlord to fill this in without an inspection by a surveyor. The landlord had previously completed works to underpin the property. The resident said that that the hole could be a recurrence of the subsidence or evidence of a defect in the works completed. Because of this she declined to allow the landlord to fill in the hole. The landlord cancelled the works order. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on this issue with the resident following the cancellation the works order. Given the concerns expressed by the resident about possible subsidence, and considering the earlier work, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection. This would have provided the reassurance looked for by the resident that there was no subsidence. That it did not do so, or otherwise communicate a position at this time, was a failure by the landlord.
14. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property in February 2025. The landlord has provided no record of the surveyor’s inspection, other than internal email exchanges. These record that the surveyor found no evidence of subsidence at the property, and that there was evidence of settlement to the concreate path. The surveyor said that they would arrange for a survey of the drains and for the repairs team to look at the concreate around the manhole cover in the rear garden. Through her correspondence and complaint, the resident disputed this and said that the surveyor had said that the “ground was hollow and the levels dropping”. The Ombudsman is an impartial service, and our decisions are based on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, we cannot conclude which is accurate without additional supporting evidence. However, in some circumstances we may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence. It would have been appropriate for the landlord’s surveyor to have kept a clear record of its discussion with the resident on this issue. This would have provided clarity on what it discussed with the resident and enabled it to set a clear action plan. That it did not do so was a failure in the circumstances of the case.
15. The evidence shows that as an outcome of its inspection, the landlord agreed to arrange to carry out a drain survey. The landlord did not raise on order for this work until 5 March 2025, 3 weeks after its inspection. Considering the resident’s mobility and health issues it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted sooner in arranging this survey. This could have provided the reassurance looked for by the resident. This was an unnecessary delay. which can only have reinforced the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of this issue.
16. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sink hole in her garden. While it raised initial repairs promptly, it did not act to provide reassurance to the resident through an earlier inspection by its surveyor. Further there was a failure to make a record of the outcome of the inspection and the actions it would take. There was also a delay in raising the follow-on inspection of the drains.
17. We have made an order for compensation which recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the identified delays. This is in line with our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Reports of a pest infestation
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord has provided copies of the reports that its pest control contractor provided following each of its visits to the resident’s home. These started in January 2025. In its first report on 22 January 2025 the pest control contactor noted the presence of mice within the property. It further recorded that the property was subject to subsidence and that “a large void around the property exterior is a potential rodent run and ingress point”. Furthermore, it noted that the loft would require clearance following completion of the treatment.
19. Its pest contractor continued to visit the property regularly until 18 March 2025 when it confirmed that the property was free of pest activity. It had treated for mice inside the property and rats outside. All its reports recorded its view that there was evidence of subsidence and that the landlord should clear and reinsulate the loft space following the completion of its treatment. The landlord has provided no evidence that it acted on the recommendations of its pest control contractor when these were first made. Within its internal correspondence it showed that there had been a failure within its information systems. This led to it not following up on the request for works by its pest control contractor.
20. It acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for its oversight. It said that it had raised an order for its pest control contractor to clear the loft as an outcome to her complaint. It was to then follow up by renewing the loft insulation. Its repair records show that it completed these works on 16 June 2025. In recognising this delay the landlord offered the resident compensation of £75. This is in line with its compensation guidance.
21. In its stage 2 the landlord commented on its pest contractors note that there was subsidence at the property. It said that this was not the view of its surveyor. The evidence suggests that the surveyor’s first formed this view based on photographs of the property, ahead of its inspection in February 2025. It would have been appropriate for it to have acted on its pest control contractor’s comments when these were first made in January 2025, to provide a level of reassurance to the resident. There was an oversight by the landlord in not following up on these comments. This can only have caused the resident further concern. That it did not provide reassurance to the resident at an earlier stage was a failure in its service to the resident. Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, we have made an order for an added amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Further we have ordered the landlord to arrange for a further inspection of the property to confirm that there is no evidence of subsidence.
22. The resident reported that she continued to experience pest issues on 1 April 2025, and the landlord arranged for its pest contractor to revisit her home. The landlord’s records show that its contactor carried out routine visits throughout the summer months with the last record provided dated 1 August 2025 showing continued pest activity at the property. The landlord should confirm with the resident if the issue has now been resolved to her satisfaction.

Complaint	A request for adaptations to the garden path.
Finding	No maladministration

23. The resident raised a concern about the condition of the path at her home in her follow up correspondence about the sink hole that had appeared. The landlord initially arranged for her housing officer to attend and take photographs of the areas that she was concerned about. The landlord’s surveyor then considered these. Its notes record that there was evidence of some damage to the concreate around the manhole cover. It said that the main pathway was in good condition and level. There is evidence of an overlap in the resident’s requests for works to address the sink hole in the garden and her request for work to widen the pathway at her home.
24. The landlord’s surveyor noted that it advised the resident that her request for the path to be widened would need to be reviewed by occupational therapy. The landlord’s records show that it made a referral to occupational therapy on 17 February 2025 following this inspection. It made a further referral on 4 March 2025. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
25. The resident told the landlord in her escalated complaint that occupational therapy had told her to contact the landlord about her path. It explained in its stage 2 response that adaptations to the path required the involvement of occupational therapy. This was appropriate an in line with its repair’s policy.
26. The landlord’s repairs policy records that it will carry out adaptations to meet the needs of its residents. This it does in “partnership with local authorities and other organisations …”. Its repairs records capture that on 28 May 2025 it raised an order for to widen the front gate. Further, a joint inspection with an occupational therapist was completed on 17 June 2025. As an outcome the landlord arranged for its repairs team to refix a railing at the rear of the property, repair concreate to the manhole cover and fill in the hole in the rear garden. Its adaptations team was then to undertake work to the front garden, removing paving slabs and concreate the space. These works were agreed with the resident.
27. The landlord acted appropriately to request an inspection by an occupational therapist, it then acted on the recommendations made to raise the necessary works. The landlord is asked to confirm that these have now been completed to the resident’s satisfaction.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. If a resident escalates their complaint, it requires landlords to acknowledge this within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
29. The resident raised her complaint on 4 March 2025. The landlord’s response both at stage 1 and following her escalation of the complaint on 14 March 2025 were completed within the landlord published targets and in line with the Code. It has not provided evidence that it formally acknowledged her complaint at either stage. However, given its timely responses we do not consider that the lack of an acknowledgement caused a significant detriment to the resident.
30. Its response at stage 1 was completed within 5 working days. This provided a very detailed response setting out the actions it had taken to respond to the resident’s reported repair issues. It failed however to identify the work carried out on its behalf by its pest control contractors and the recommendations made.
31. These issues were addressed in its stage 2 response as it apologised for its oversight around the recommendations of its pest control contractors. The stage 2 was issued on 1 April 2025, 12 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. This further provided a clear response with a clear outcome.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should ensure that it keeps a record of its surveyor’s inspections. Ensuring that it has a record of what it discussed with the resident and what actions it agreed as an outcome.