From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Acis Group Limited (202319275)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319275

Acis Group Limited

17 March 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
    2. The resident’s dissatisfaction with a contractor’s behaviour at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant at the property between 25 October 2021 and 14 January 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord was aware that the resident had several medical conditions that included limited mobility.
  2. On 14 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that she thought she could hear rodents in the roof space of the property. She said she thought they may be able to access this area because the roof was in a state of disrepair.
  3. The landlord responded on 17 November 2022. It quoted a section of her tenancy agreement which said, “You are responsible for the eradication of any pest and/or rodent infestations at the property.” It said that once she had organised a pest control company to attend, she should forward the report they provided to it so that it could block off any entry points.
  4. The resident complained on the 17 November 2022. She said that:
    1. Unless she had caused the infestation the landlord was responsible for eradicating pests. This was because it had a legal duty to provide accommodation fit for human habitation.
    2. Just because the tenancy agreement said it was her responsibility this did not make it fair or legally enforceable.
    3. The landlord should investigate whether there was an infestation.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 November 2022 and responded on 1 December 2022. It said that it had given appropriate advice when it told her that she was responsible for pest control in the property. It also said that it was due to conduct a full property inspection and would consider whether there were any obvious entry points for rodents. Otherwise, it was happy to receive recommendations for work from a pest control specialist. It advised the resident under what criteria it would accept a complaint escalation.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 1 December 2022. She said that she had not encouraged rodent activity and thought that the landlord was responsible for pest control.
  7. The landlord responded on 5 December 2022. It said that it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process because the criteria for escalation was not met.
  8. The resident logged another complaint on 13 January 2023. She said that the behaviour of the pest control contractor the landlord had sent to the property that day was unacceptable. She said he was “rude, dismissive and at times intimidating and aggressive”.
  9. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 17 January 2023 and responded on 27 January 2023. It said that:
    1. It had spoken to the individual concerned and to a local authority officer who was present at the appointment.
    2. It was apparent that there had been a substantial difference of opinion between the resident and the contractor.
    3. The nature of the contact was fractious but this was attributable to both parties and therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
    4. It would instruct another pest control company to attend the property. It asked the resident to let it know if she would like to select the company or whether it should choose one itself.
  10. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process on 29 January 2023. It provided a response on 7 February 2023 in which it said that:
    1. It felt that it had been reasonable to use the local authority officers account of the appointment and considering this account, which it had shared with the resident, it was satisfied that the issue was attributable to both parties.
    2. It had completed the work recommended by the contractor that attended on 13 January 2023. This was to fit a wire guard on the soil pipe and repoint the brickwork of the septic tank. However, because the resident had not responded to its query about instructing another contractor, the rodent infestation remained.
    3. It did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Rodent infestation

  1. The landlord advised us that it has no specific policy relating to pest infestations. However, its repairs and maintenance policy states that customers are responsible for pest control or removal, including rodents. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident is responsible for the eradication of any pest or rodent infestations at the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, external walls, and doors.
  3. Under the law, the landlord must ensure that the property is habitable and free from the risk of disease. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System, used by local authorities when assessing hazards and risks in a property, says that landlords should take preventative measures to reduce the means of access by pests to a minimum.
  4. Guidance for landlords regarding pest infestations found on our website says that:
    1. After a resident has reported the issue, a landlord should undertake timely inspections of homes/impacted areas.
    2. It should then undertake timely repairs in accordance with its repairs policy, depending on the severity of the issue.
    3. Landlords should not place the onus on the resident to sort the problem. While they may have a part to play, they may not be the root cause and landlords should investigate this fully before deciding who is responsible.
    4. All reports of pest infestation should be taken seriously and not be dismissed.
  5. The landlord initially dismissed the resident’s report that she could hear rodents in her roof space. While the tenancy agreement and repairs policy state that she is responsible for eradication of pests, the landlord should have inspected the property to make sure there were no obvious points of entry. This failure to follow our guidance and to ensure that it fulfilled its own repair obligations cost the resident time and trouble because she had to email again and then complain. It also caused her distress and inconvenience because it delayed a resolution.
  6. Two months later the landlord sent a pest control company to the property to investigate. It is unclear why it changed its original decision regarding this. This was appropriate action to take, although it should have arranged this sooner. The landlord then completed the repairs recommended by the pest control company within a reasonable period.
  7. Due to the landlord’s failure to inspect the property at an earlier stage to ensure that there were no obvious entry points for rodents, and the delay this caused in it carrying out appropriate repairs, there was service failure in its handling of reports of a rodent infestation. We have therefore ordered it to pay £100 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused.

Contractor behaviour

  1. We will not form a view on whether the contractor’s behaviour was appropriate. It is our role to decide whether the landlord investigated adequately and took proportionate action based on the evidence available.
  2. The resident complained about a contractor that the landlord instructed to attend the property. A third party, who was not from either organisation, was present at the appointment. Therefore, it was reasonable that part of the landlord’s investigation included asking the third party their opinion of the contractor’s behaviour.
  3. There is evidence that the landlord spoke to the contractor concerned and obtained the third party’s opinion. It shared the account of the third party with the resident. Based on the information it obtained it was reasonable for it to conclude that the issue was “attributable to both parties”.
  4. The landlord then offered to send out a different contractor and gave the resident the option to choose who this was.
  5. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately and informed the resident of the outcome in a timely manner. It then offered to send out a different contractor. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its handling of her reports about dissatisfaction with a contractor’s behaviour.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer feedback policy in place at the time of the complaint said that if a resident wanted to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process one of the following criteria must be met:
    1. The earlier investigation and associated response were factually inaccurate.
    2. The response did not address the complaint.
    3. Important relevant information was not considered at stage 1.
    4. It did not complete the actions agreed at stage 1 of the process within a reasonable timescale.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) in place at the time of the complaint, said that if the landlord did not resolve all, or part of the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2, unless an exclusion ground applied. It said that these grounds should be fair and reasonable to residents. It also said that a complaints policy must clearly set out when a landlord would not escalate the complaint. If it declined to escalate it must clearly communicate its reasons in writing. It must also inform the resident of their right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
  3. The landlord did not escalate the first complaint to stage 2 of the process. However, it told the resident what criteria must be met before it would do so. These criteria were more prescriptive than the criteria suggested in the Code. However, we do not consider them to be unfair or unreasonable. The landlord also complied with the Code when it wrote to her and gave her full reasons for its refusal to escalate the complaint and signposted her to our Service.
  4. The latest version of the Code says that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure”. The landlord has amended its current customer feedback policy to reflect this and now no longer includes grounds under which it will not escalate. It now says, “We will consider any escalation request that is made within 10 working days of the complaint response at Stage 1.”
  5. In summary, the landlord complied with its policy and the Code at the time of the complaint and communicated its decision to the resident, including advice on how to contact us for help. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of dissatisfaction with a contractor’s behaviour at the property.
    2. The complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the service failure identified in its handling of her reports of a rodent infestation.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of a rodent infestation.
  3. The landlord must provide a briefing note to all staff dealing with enquiries about rodent infestation. This is to ensure that staff consider the guidelines on pest control from our website. The landlord must provide a copy of the briefing note to us within 6 weeks of the date of this report.