Accent Housing Limited (202339250)

Decision
Case ID	202339250
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Accent Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	8 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. At the time of her complaint, she lived with her 2 children, 1 was under 5. The resident reported mice in the property, which affected her ability to enjoy it. She has complained that the landlord delayed securing the property from pests.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of mice in the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of mice in the property.
4. There was maladministration the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of mice

5. The landlord failed to complete repairs within its Repairs policy timescales. It delayed pest-proofing the property and prolonged the resident’s distress. The landlord’s communication and oversight of repairs was poor.

Response to the complaint

6. The landlord did not acknowledge that it delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at either stage in line with its policy and the Code. It failed to recognise the impact of its poor communication and delays, which caused uncertainty and inconvenience.

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 15 January 2026
2	The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: a)                £50 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response b)                £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by delaying its stage 1 and 2 response c)                £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by its poor communication and delay in completing the repairs The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. 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 15 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord could consider reviewing its Repairs policy to clarify its approach to pest control in houses. This could include when it will help the resident address the pests, what support can be provided to residents, and how this will be communicated.
The resident has reported that the landlord made a commitment to install a new kitchen. We have not seen evidence to support this. The landlord could consider issuing a response as to whether it committed to this.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 22 September 2022 and 14 January 2023	The resident reported mice in the property. She arranged for pest control to attend and gave the landlord a copy of pest control’s report that recommended blocking entry points. The landlord completed the recommended work.
09 October 2023	The resident reported mice in the property that had damaged her personal belongings. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend and arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property.
23 November 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about ongoing pest issues. She told it the problem began in 2021. The Surveyor had not contacted her since they visited on 7 November 2023. She replaced damaged personal belongings at her own cost. To resolve her complaint, she asked the landlord to block all the entry points and stop the infestation.
12 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the resident reported mice on 9 October 2023. It explained: Pest control is the resident’s responsibility, but it arranged 3 visits to help the resident. A surveyor attended on 13 October 2023 but could not access the property. The Surveyor returned on 7 November 2023, identified entry points, and raised repairs to block them. The contractor completed repairs on 4 December 2023 after a misunderstanding. The resident should clear the rubbish from the garden to help prevent mice. The landlord said future pest control would be the resident’s responsibility if the repairs did not resolve the issue. She would need to claim for her damaged belongings through her contents insurance.
20 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and disagreed with its account of actions. She said the problem began when she moved in during 2021. Her family was living in 1 room because of the infestation. Pest control attended once, and the repairs were incomplete. Her Housing Officer had missed an appointment and did not contact her. She asked the landlord to complete the repairs and secure the property from pests.
06 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact of the issue, damaged belongings, and how it managed the repairs. It reviewed its stage 1 response and found it accurately reflected the events that had occurred. It said the resident first reported pests in May 2022, 6 months after she had moved in. It assured her that the property was let without pests. It apologised the Housing Officer missed the visit and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the mice were still present and she asked for the landlord to secure the property from mice or move her elsewhere.
Between 19 April 2024 and 1 October 2024	The resident made further reports of mice in the property. The landlord visited, arranged pest control, and carried out repairs to secure the home. The resident confirmed that there have been no further pest issues.

 

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 response to reports of mice in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

7. There were events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As these events related to the resident’s original complaint, we have decided that it is appropriate to investigate beyond the landlord’s complaint procedure. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to mice in the property between September 2022 and October 2024.
8. On 22 September 2022 the resident reported a mice infestation. She arranged her own pest control and shared the pest control report that recommended blocking entry points. The landlord completed the repairs on 14 January 2023.
9. The landlord’s Repairs policy says that residents are responsible for pest control, but the landlord will block entry points. It will complete non-emergency repairs in 28 days. The landlord took 114 days to complete the repairs. The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident avoidable and prolonged distress. The property was not protected from further infestation during this time.
10. On 9 October 2023 the resident reported mice again and said they had damaged her belongings. The landlord arranged pest control and booked a surveyor visit for 13 October 2023. The Surveyor recorded no access and left a calling card. Pest control was not the landlord’s responsibility, but arranging visits at its own expense was reasonable and showed it took the matter seriously.
11. On 19 October 2023 the Housing Officer missed an appointment with the resident. They failed to tell the resident that the appointment had been cancelled. The resident had to contact the landlord several times for an update, causing her frustration and inconvenience.
12. On 23 October 2023 the Housing Officer visited. They recorded that the household was sleeping in 1 room due to the mice. The resident said the Surveyor had not contacted her and pest control had not attended. Another surveyor appointment was booked for 7 November 2023. She disputed that a calling card was previous left after the previous visit.
13. Mice are identified as a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords must assess the severity of any infestation and take steps to reduce any risk. The landlord’s policy says it will make an appointment with the resident based on the urgency of the work and the household’s personal needs and circumstances. Knowing the household was sleeping in 1 room, the landlord could have considered this as part of its response and prioritised the Surveyor visit. The resident waited 29 days for the Surveyor following her initial report. This delay was unreasonable and prolonged her distress.
14. When the Surveyor attended, they found mice droppings throughout the property. Pest control had completed its first visit and left bait in the kitchen and bathroom. Repairs were promptly raised to fit a mesh cover over an air vent and block entry points. The Surveyor asked the resident to clear the rubbish from the garden to help prevent pests.
15. It was appropriate for the landlord to identify where it could secure the property and any potential sources that could worsen pest problems. This approach was consistent with the HHSRS guidance, which says landlords should consider access points and sources when planning its approach to solving the problem.
16. Pest control attended twice between 10 and 22 November 2023. They replenished the bait on the second visit and recorded no access on the third visit. The resident disputes these visits. The contractor also attended but they did not complete the repairs or install the mesh cover. The resident informed the landlord who appropriately apologised and asked the contractor to return. It missed the opportunity to provide a clear timeframe for completion and manage the resident’s expectations.
17. On 23 November 2023 the resident logged a stage 1 complaint. She said problems began in 2021 and the Surveyor had not contacted her since their visit. She replaced her damaged belongings at her own cost. She asked the landlord to resolve the infestation and block all entry points.
18. Between 4 and 11 December 2023 the resident reported that the mouse traps had not been collected. The landlord had marked the repairs and air vent as complete on 4 December 2023, but the resident said they were not. She told the landlord she was concerned about becoming ill due to the mice.
19. This shows a pattern of the resident chasing the landlord for updates and poor coordination of the repairs. Accurate records are essential for monitoring contractor performance and confirming the status of repairs. The resident’s disagreement highlights weak oversight of contractor record-keeping.
20. On 12 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the resident reported pest issues on 9 October 2023. Its Surveyor visited on 13 October 2023 but recorded no access. It appropriately apologised for the missed Housing Officer missed the appointment, but it fell short of offering compensation in line with its Compensation policy.
21. The landlord’s response said that pest control attended on 26 October, 10 November, and 17 November 2023. It explained that pest control was not the landlord’s responsibility, but it helped the resident due to the length of time the issues had persisted. It said the contractor completed the repairs on 4 December 2023 after a misunderstanding. It told the resident to claim through her contents insurance for her damaged belongings. This advice was reasonable and consistent with the landlord’s Compensation policy, which says it will not compensate for personal belongings and residents should claim through their contents insurance.
22. It also said future pest control would be her responsibility if pests continued. The landlord did not acknowledge its delays in visiting the resident, or how she had been living due to the mice. It failed to address her concern that mice were present since she moved in, which undermined her confidence in its response.
23. This investigation does not go back to the start of the tenancy because we do not normally investigate issues that were not raised with the landlord within 12 months of the issue occurring. This is because landlords need an opportunity to investigate issues while they are still live. The landlord’s Complaints policy says that it will not accept complaints about events that are more than 6 months old. The landlord missed the opportunity to explain to the resident whether its investigation would date back to the start of her tenancy.
24. On 20 December 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the infestation was present when she moved into the property. She disputed the landlord’s account of the actions it had taken. Pest control attended once, and the repairs were incomplete. She reported mice in the bathroom and asked the landlord to secure the property or move her to another property. Her belongings had been damaged, and she felt she had restricted use of the property.
25. On 10 January 2024 she contacted the landlord for an update, saying that action would only be taken if her children were bitten. This suggests that the repairs that were incomplete and pest control visits were unsuccessful. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns until it provided its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024, 27 days later. This was an unreasonable delay that likely left the resident feeling that her concerns were not taken seriously.
26. On 6 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had reviewed its stage 1 response and was satisfied it reflected the actions that were taken. It offered £50 compensation for the missed Housing Officer visit. This was reasonable and aligns with its Compensation policy that allows for payments where it fails to meet its service standards.
27. The landlord said that the resident first reports pests in May 2022, 6 months after she had moved in. It assured the resident the property was let without pests. It missed the opportunity to identify that it had taken over 100 days to complete repairs after the resident’s reports in September 2022. It offered the resident an appointment to discuss what other support it could provide as the resident had expressed distress from her living situation. Its Surveyor would contact her to inspect the bathroom for mice but failed to provide her with a timeframe.
28. It is unclear when the Surveyor visited, but a repair was raised on 8 March 2024 to block entry holes under the bath. This was more than 2 months after the resident had told it there were mice in the bathroom. The landlord failed to respond sooner and explain its approach. Pest control made 3 attempts to access the property on 26 March, 3 April, and 17 April 2024. It is unclear whether these appointments were scheduled with the resident in advance.
29. On 19 April 2024 the resident reported mice in the bathroom again. The landlord arranged pest control and repairs to block entry points. This was completed on 30 May 2024. This timeframe was reasonable because pest control treatments require multiple visits. The resident has confirmed that a new bathroom was installed in late 2024 as part of a larger project, and the mice have not returned.
30. Between May and October 2024, the landlord made repeated attempts to contact the resident to discuss the pest issues. On 10 July 2024 the Housing Officer and recorded that mice were still present in every room despite previous attempts to resolve the issues. Between July and August 2024, the Surveyor made 4 attempts to contact the resident to inspect the property. The landlord’s efforts were appropriate and showed it was taking the issue seriously.
31. On 30 August 2024 a repair was raised to replace 2 kitchen units, block access points, and fit a mesh cover on an external air vent. It is unclear why the repairs for the mesh cover and holes were logged as completed in December 2023 and May 2024. These repairs were identified as outstanding in August 2024. This inconsistency suggests a poor record-keeping and weak contractor oversight.
32. These works were completed over 2 days and were finished in early October 2024. This was almost 12 months after the landlord began taking steps to address the pests. The repairs were completed slightly outside of the 28-day timescale, but this likely had little impact given the length of the issue.
33. In summary, the landlord went someway to put things right in its stage 2 response. It apologised for the miscommunication and offered compensation for the missed Housing Officer visit. It arranged further pest control despite this not being its responsibility. However, it did not complete the repairs in a reasonable timeframe. It failed to acknowledge the length of time the resident was unable to enjoy the property. Despite multiple visits, the mice persisted until October 2024, 12 months after the landlord began investigating the pests.
34. The landlord missed opportunities to provide clear timeframes and offer financial redress for the prolonged distress and inconvenience. These failings likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord and left her living in concern for an extended period. We have made a further compensation order of £300 in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

35. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
36. The landlord has a published Complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
37. On 23 November 2023 the resident logged a complaint, which the landlord acknowledged the next day. Under its policy and the Code, the landlord should have responded within 10 working days, by 7 December 2023. It did not do so. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 occasions before the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2023. This was 12 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint.
38. The response was 2 working days outside of its policy and the Code. The landlord failed to explain the delay and apologise. Poor communication left the resident unsure about whether she would receive a response. She also had to chase the landlord for an update, causing her avoidable inconvenience.
39. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this within 5 working days as required by its policy. Instead, the resident had to contact the landlord again on 10 January 2024, before it acknowledged the escalation that day. This was 12 working days after the resident’s initial request. The delay and lack of communication added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
40. On 6 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, 31 working days after the escalation. This exceeded the 20-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code, showing a pattern of it failing to follow them. The landlord did not apologise for the delay.
41. Overall, the landlord failed to follow its policy and the Code at both stages. The resident had to contact the landlord multiple times for a response, compounding her distress and inconvenience. The pattern of poor communication and delays persisted, adding to her loss of confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. A compensation order of £100 has been made to recognise the impact of these failings.

Learning

42. Poor oversight and weak communication caused repeated contractor visits. The landlord could review the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on pest control and consider improvements to its Repairs policy to ensure residents feel supported.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. Accurate record-keeping is critical for effective repairs management. In this case, conflicting completion dates and disputed visits suggest poor oversight. The landlord could consider how it records evidence of visits, such as through photographs. This would improve accountability, reduce disputes, and strengthen the landlord’s oversight of its services.

Communication

44. Clear and early communication is essential for managing expectations. During this complaint, the landlord’s communication was poor, and the resident had to chase for updates. Communication improved after the final response, but consistent proactive updates throughout would have reduced uncertainty and distress.