Clarion Housing Association Limited (202343847)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202343847 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Clarion Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
31 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom property with her husband. In January 2024, she reported a leak within the property which was identified as being caused by rats chewing through the kitchen pipework. The resident reported to the landlord ongoing pest activity, concerns regarding entry points, and the damage that was being caused.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest activity and the associated repairs.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest activity and the associated repairs.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation that was appropriate for the complaint period. However, it consistently appeared uncertain about what pest-proofing works were required and whether those works had been completed. This lack of clarity contributed to delays in resolving the issue and may have allowed the infestation to persist. The inconsistency in communication and record-keeping undermined the effectiveness of the landlord’s response and prolonged the resident’s experience of the problem.
- The landlord did not initially treat the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint and issued its stage 1 response significantly outside its policy timescales.
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:
|
No later than 27 November 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £1,995.27 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. 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 made. |
No later than 27 November 2025 |
|
3 |
Order to inspect and take specific action
The landlord must carry out an up-to-date inspection of the property, including externally, in relation to the pest proofing works required to ensure all entry points are pest proof. This should include:
Written confirmation of its findings and proposed action should be provided to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of this determination. |
No later than 11 December 2025 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
January and February 2024 |
The resident reported a leak to the landlord’s out–of–hours repairs service. The landlord’s contractors attended and carried out a temporary repair, noting that the damaged was caused by rats/mice having chewed the pipe. Further works were carried out and additional leaks found. The contractor again noted a rodent issue. |
|
1 March 2024 |
An initial pest control visit took place. A hole in the skirting board was plugged with wire wool and it was recommended to remove the kickboards for a proofing assessment for any other holes. |
|
1 March 2024 |
The resident raised a complaint. She said that:
|
|
3 May 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It outlined the action it had taken in relation to the rat infestation, which included visits from its pest control contractor. It identified service failure regarding missed appointments from its pest control contractor and its own delay in providing the stage 1 response. It offered the resident a total of £300 compensation, broken down into £250 for the delay in resolving the pest issue and £50 for its complaint handling. |
|
10 May 2024 |
The resident contacted us requesting to make a complaint. We contacted the landlord on her behalf and asked it to provide a response. |
|
17 May 2024 |
The landlord sent an additional stage 1 response outlining its understanding of the complaint and clarifying that the resident was unhappy with the standard of work in pest proofing the property. It said that:
|
|
22 May 2024 |
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that the main pipe did not split and had been “gnawed”. Additionally, she disputed that she had not previously reported the damage to the skirting board and flooring which she said was caused by a rat. |
|
12 June 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said that:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident explained that there was not currently an infestation, but she was concerned it would return. As a resolution, she said she would like the landlord to fulfil its original commitment to remove the kitchen base units and carry out proper pest proofing. She also noted that the replacement kickboards did not match the existing kitchen and expressed a desire for a new kitchen, given that rats had infested the base units. |
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 handing of the resident’s reports of pest activity and associated repairs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- On 27 January 2024, the resident reported a leak, and the landlord responded within 24 hours to carry out a temporary repair. This action aligned with the landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy, which requires that emergency repairs must be attended to within 24 hours. The contractor identified a damaged pipe, likely caused by rodent activity. A permanent repair was completed on 29 January 2024. The landlord’s response was timely and consistent with its policy.
- On 4 February 2024, a further leak was reported and the landlord attended within 24 hours. However, resolving the issue required assistance from the water company. The contractor observed a rodent problem at the property and noted that the main supply pipe had been chewed by a rat. At that time, there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had raised the issue with its pest control provider. This was not appropriate, as the landlord failed to act in accordance with its pest and wildlife policy, which states that it is responsible for identifying and sealing any potential access points within the structure of its properties. This was unfair to the resident as it delayed a resolution to the rodent infestation.
- Pest control attended the property on 1 March 2024. The contractor reported evidence of rodent activity and identified a hole in the skirting board, which had been plugged with wire wool. However, they were unable to remove the kickboards as they were sealed in place, preventing access to the affected area. The contractor recommended that the kickboards be removed to allow a full proofing assessment to be carried out. This work was evidenced as completed on 15 March 2024. Although the removal of the kickboards was carried out within the 28-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, the initial report of pest activity had been made on 27 January 2024. This means it took 48 days for the landlord to take direct action regarding the rodent infestation, which was not in line with its routine repairs policy requiring such repairs to be completed within 28 calendar days.
- In her stage 1 complaint dated 1 March 2024, the resident stated that pest control had attended the property that day but was unable to take further action, as they were not equipped to remove kitchen cabinets or the washing machine to access and seal holes in the skirting boards—believed to be potential entry points for rats. She noted that the landlord had been aware of this issue since February 2024 and requested that it take immediate action to address the holes. Although this situation was not ideal, the available evidence does not indicate that the landlord was aware that the sealed kickboards needed to be removed in order to access the affected area. Without this knowledge, it would have been unreasonable to expect the landlord to take that specific action at the time. However, this highlights the importance of thorough inspections and clear communication between contractors and landlords to ensure that all necessary access points are identified when addressing pest issues.
- On 4 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about difficulties she had encountered when trying to arrange pest control appointments. She reported being given incorrect appointment dates, which caused confusion and delays. The resident also stated that she had been dealing with a persistent rat infestation for approximately 9 weeks and expressed frustration over the lack of resolution. In addition to requesting that the pest issue be addressed promptly, she also requested a new kitchen, likely due to the damage and disruption caused by the infestation. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns raised on 4 April 2024. In the absence of any documented follow-up or action taken, it appears the landlord did not acknowledge or address the issues reported at that time. This lack of response was not appropriate, particularly given the resident’s ongoing experience with a pest infestation.
- The repair records show that on 15 April and 1 May 2024, a pest control operative attended the property and reported no visible signs of pest activity. The resident also did not report any recent sightings. The operative recommended removing a corner kitchen unit to seal an unseen hole and suggested concreting a hole that led beneath the property’s foundations to prevent further access. According to the repair log, these works were completed on 15 May 2024—30 calendar days later. This slightly exceeded the landlord’s repair policy timescale. It is noted that the work order was not raised until 26 April 2024. Had the order been raised promptly following the operative’s visit, the repairs could have been completed within the required timeframe, in line with the landlord’s policy.
- On 3 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, outlining the actions it had taken to address the resident’s concerns. It stated that while there were no signs of recent rodent activity, chewed insulation was observed, likely located behind the kitchen units, which would need to be removed to fully investigate and resolve the issue. The landlord advised that it would contact the resident to arrange access for this work. It also acknowledged that there had been missed pest control appointments, as highlighted by the resident, and offered £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This response demonstrated a resolution-focused approach by the landlord, aiming to address both the practical issues and the impact on the resident.
- Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued an additional stage 1 response on 17 May 2024, specifically addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the leak repairs. The landlord acknowledged that multiple visits were required between January and February 2024 to fully resolve the issue and offered an apology for the inconvenience caused. It also stated that it had no record of any repairs related to damage to the flooring or skirting boards within the previous 12 months. The landlord accepted its shortcomings, identified areas for improvement, and offered the resident an additional £200 in compensation. This was a constructive and appropriate response, demonstrating accountability and aligning with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- On 22 May 2024, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She disputed the landlord’s description of the issue, stating that the pipe had not split but had instead been chewed by rats. She also questioned why the landlord had only reviewed records from the previous 12 months in relation to the reported damage to the skirting boards, suggesting this was an insufficient timeframe. Additionally, the resident did not accept the compensation offered, indicating that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the overall handling of her concerns. During January and February 2024, the landlord’s contractors had observed that the pipework had been chewed by rats. However, the landlord did not adequately address this finding in its response, which failed to demonstrate to the resident that the issue had been properly investigated. This omission understandably caused frustration for the resident, who was seeking reassurance that the matter was being taken seriously.
- That said, it was reasonable for the landlord to review records from the previous 12 months when considering reported damage to the flooring and skirting boards. This timeframe aligns with the Scheme, as residents are generally expected to raise concerns within a reasonable period. Therefore, the landlord’s approach in this regard was appropriate.
- On 4 June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to request further details regarding her escalation request. Internally, the landlord also raised concerns that it was uncertain whether all necessary pest-proofing measures had been completed at the property. While seeking clarification from the resident was an appropriate step in progressing the complaint, it is concerning that the landlord lacked confidence in whether essential proofing works had been carried out, particularly given the ongoing nature of the pest issue.
- On the following day, the resident informed the landlord that she had heard scratching noises coming from within the kitchen wall and from the area outside where a paving slab had previously been lifted to inspect for rat activity. This suggested that the rat infestation had returned, further highlighting the need for thorough and effective pest-proofing.
- As stated above, internal correspondence from June 2024 revealed that the landlord lacked a clear understanding of what pest-proofing works had already been completed and what further actions were required. This uncertainty suggests that the landlord’s record-keeping was either poor or inaccurate, which may have contributed to delays and confusion in addressing the ongoing pest issue. Effective documentation is essential for ensuring continuity of service and accountability, and the absence of reliable records in this case undermined the landlord’s ability to manage the situation appropriately.
- On 12 June 2024, the landlord conducted a CCTV survey of the property’s drainage system. During the inspection, a live rat was observed, along with a partial collapse of the concrete paving slabs. The damage appeared to have been caused by rats burrowing beneath the garden patio. The survey report strongly recommended the installation of one-way rat guards on the external subsurface drainage system to block potential entry points and prevent further infestation. This finding highlighted the ongoing nature of the pest issue and the need for more robust preventative measures.
- The same day, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, outlining the actions it had taken and acknowledging its failings. It confirmed that it would arrange for a suitably qualified operative to revisit the property and carry out the recommended pest-proofing works in line with pest control advice. Additionally, the landlord committed to the following remedial actions:
- Renewing the kitchen cabinets as necessary, including replacing the kickboards once all proofing works were completed.
- Assessing whether a disinfectant clean was required in the kitchen and replacing any affected units accordingly.
- Awarding the resident a total of £1,595.27 in compensation.
- The landlord’s response was resolution-focused, and the compensation offered was reasonable in attempting to put things right. However, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the landlord followed through on the actions it committed to. Entries in the repair log dated 3 and 31 July 2024 indicate that no pest-proofing work had been carried out at that time, and a repair order was only raised on 8 August 2024. Although the record states that the work was completed on 6 September 2024, the resident disputes this, and a further routine repair was raised on 4 November 2024, suggesting that the necessary works were still outstanding. This inconsistency raises concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s records and the effectiveness of its follow-up processes.
- Overall, the landlord consistently appeared uncertain about what pest-proofing works were required and whether they had been completed. This lack of clarity contributed to delays in resolving the issue and may have allowed the infestation to persist. Despite offering compensation that was appropriate for the complaint period, the landlord did not fully deliver on the actions it committed to. In light of this, an additional £300 has been awarded to reflect the continued inconvenience and the apparent failure to complete the necessary works.
- Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest activity and associated repairs. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says for findings of maladministration, an award of over £100 is appropriate where the resident has been distressed or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors but there may be no permanent impact.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
- On 1 March 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction, stating she was “not allowed” to submit a complaint through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. Subsequently, the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord on her behalf on 11 March 2024. It was only at this point that the landlord acknowledged the complaint and registered it at stage 1. The resident received an acknowledgment from the landlord on 15 March 2024. This approach did not comply with the Code, which states that any expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 May 2024—34 working days later—well beyond the 10-working-day timeframe set out in its policy. A further stage 1 response was provided on 17 May 2024, which was also inconsistent with the Code. If the landlord had conducted a thorough investigation initially, a second response would not have been necessary. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £50 in compensation, which was resolution-focused. Nevertheless, we do not consider this sufficient to put things right, given the delay in providing a response and the delay in raising a complaint.
- The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 22 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and issued its response within the timeframe set out in its policy, which was appropriate and in line with expected standards.
- In light of the above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. As a result, we have awarded the resident an additional £50 in compensation. This aligns with our remedies guidance, as the landlord had made a compensation offer, but it was not quite proportionate for the failings.
Learning
- Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge, and information management can assist with this.
Communication
- The landlord did not formally recognise the need to raise a complaint and did not provide its stage 1 response within its policy timescale. The Code will help the landlord to improve the quality of its complaint communications.