Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419465)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419465

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
    2. The resident’s request to be moved.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant. The property is a flat in a converted house. The tenancy commenced in April 2024. The resident is vulnerable.
  2. In May 2023, the previous tenant reported mice and the landlord’s pest contractor identified proofing work was needed.
  3. In April 2024, the resident moved in and on 18 July 2024, she reported she had experienced rodent issues for the past 2 weeks. From 23 July 2024, she said she was staying with a family member as she was pregnant and concerned about her health.
  4. The landlord contacted its pest contractor, who arranged to visit on 2 August 2024. The landlord says the contractor later reported they were unable to access the property when they attended.
  5. The resident subsequently complained in various correspondence from 11 August 2024. She reported seeing droppings in the kitchen and a dead rat in a communal area. She raised concerns that rodents were a longstanding issue at the block. She said that no one had attended on 2 August 2024 and she was in all day. She was unhappy that the pest contractor said they could not reattend until 5 September 2024. She raised concerns that the issues jeopardised her and her unborn child’s health and said she wanted to be relocated.
  6. The landlord discussed matters with relevant parties and arranged to bring the pest contractor visit forward due to the resident’s circumstances.
  7. On 16 August 2024, the pest contractor placed bait and identified multiple entry points that needed proofing. The same day, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour to discuss concerns that their garden condition was adding to the issue. The landlord later updated the resident that the neighbour was in the process of clearing the garden. It also said that both her neighbours confirmed they had mice in the past but it was no longer an issue.
  8. On 19 August 2024, the resident said the rodents and the poison made the property unsafe for her and her unborn baby. She also said she was facing homelessness as she could no longer stay with a family member.
  9. On 23 August 2024, the resident said she had been sleeping in a family member’s car. The same day, the landlord considered temporary rehousing but said it would not move her as the infestation was low and the poison was safe and in tamper proof boxes. It arranged to do proofing on 27 August 2024 which the resident later rearranged to 9 September 2024.
  10. On 5 and 9 September 2024, the pest contractor visited and reported they were unable to access to the property. However, the landlord’s records note that a separate operative obtained access on 9 September 2024 and did proofing.
  11. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 September 2024. It noted that the resident complained about delays to resolve a pest issue and wanted to be rehoused due to unclean neighbours. It noted that she had raised concerns about bait and its pest contractor had responded to these by email. It noted that a 3-part treatment was raised after the 18 July 2024 report and the first appointment was arranged for 2 August 2024 as this was the earliest date available. It said this was rearranged to 16 August 2024 after no access and visits were also arranged for 5 and 9 September 2024. It noted the 16 August 2024 findings and said proofing had been arranged for 9 September 2024. It apologised for its delayed complaint response.
  12. The same day, the resident escalated the complaint. She said she wanted to be compensated or moved.
  13. In mid September 2024, the resident reported there were still mice and the landlord noted she was advised to report this in the normal way. The landlord then visited her neighbour again on 25 September 2024 to assess progress with their garden clearance. Soon after, it communicated internally about this.
  14. On 30 September 2024, a contractor did proofing and recommended further proofing that involved removal of the boiler if activity continued.
  15. In early October 2024, the landlord said that the pest contractor was scheduled to attend on 17 October 2024 but advised the resident to contact them as it had requested them to attend sooner if possible. It said it had also agreed to additional recommended proofing works.
  16. On 4 October 2024, the pest contractor visited. They noted the proofing was holding up fine but they recommended further mice treatment as bait consumption was evident.
  17. On 16 October 2024, a contractor attended with a gas engineer to remove the boiler and do proofing, but they reported they were unable to gain access. The resident said that her phone was in a shop for repair but disputed the contractors turned up.
  18. On 17 October 2024, the pest contractor noted that some proofing was holding up fine, they observed droppings, and they placed bait. Following this, the resident chased for updates and the landlord confirmed it was rearranging for the proofing contractor and gas engineer to reattend.
  19. On 1 November 2024, the pest contractor visited and noted low evidence of mouse activity. The same day, the landlord told the resident that the proofing works were rescheduled to 8 November 2024.
  20. On 3 November 2024, an environmental health expert inspected in respect to a legal claim by the resident. Their report noted that proofing was required in the property and for holes in the exterior walls of the building.
  21. On 6 November 2024, the pest contractor wrote to all residents at the building and said they intended to do 3 visits in November and December 2024.
  22. On 8 November 2024, the contractor attended with the gas engineer and did further proofing. The same day, the pest contractor visited. They noted that there were no reports of recent sightings or evidence of bait consumption and bait was removed.
  23. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 13 November 2024. It said it did not believe delays were service failures as the resident was unavailable for several appointments. It noted she raised health concerns about poison traps and noted the pest contractor had said the bait was safe. It acknowledged that seeing dead vermin will have been unsettling for her and said to contact it to arrange removal if this happened again. It noted she raised concerns about delays sealing holes and it noted she had been unavailable on 5 September, 9 September and 16 October 2024. It noted it completed proofing works on 8 November 2024 and had scheduled a further 3-part treatment which it would monitor. It apologised if she felt it had not kept her updated and said it was unable to find evidence for this but had asked staff to agree an update frequency with her. It concluded it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaints but it awarded £100 for its delayed complaint response.
  24. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor subsequently filled holes in the exterior wall of the building on 14 November 2024. The resident made further reports about rodents in November 2024 and January 2025. The landlord did further pest treatment and proofing at the building and in other flats. The landlord also took some actions about the garden issues in December 2024 and February 2025. The resident also investigated a move via mutual exchange and provided information to the landlord to consider a management transfer due to medical issues that arose in December 2024.
  25. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman and raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s delays resolving the issues, the accuracy of its response, and paying rent for periods she was not staying at the property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest policy sets out obligations for such issues. Residents are obligated to take reasonable action to prevent and reduce pest infestation, which includes promptly reporting issues and keeping gardens tidy. The landlord is responsible to identify and block access points, eradicate infestations in communal areas or those caused by its action or inaction.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord generally handled the resident’s reports about the rodent infestation in line with its policy. The Ombudsman understands how distressing the issues were for the resident, but such issues can be complex and it can take multiple visits for a landlord to resolve them.
  3. It did pest control and proofing and liaised with its contractors to bring forward visits. It has done further treatment, including to other properties at the building, when she has reported issues have continued. It blocked some external holes the same month that an inspector arranged by the resident observed them. It sought to reassure her that the issue had not been ongoing for a long period as she believed. It also reasonably acknowledged, apologised and compensated for complaint response delays.  However, aspects of the landlord’s handling were not entirely satisfactory.
  4. The resident raised inaccuracies with the landlord’s responses and disputed its claims that some delays were due to her unavailability. The evidence reasonably shows that the landlord’s contractors did attend for a proofing visit on 16 October 2024 the resident says she was at home all day for, as contemporaneous emails and texts are provided. The lack of proofing on this day seems to be due to access and communication issues between the contractors and resident rather than a service failing.
  5. However, the landlord said that it did not obtain access for a proofing visit on 9 September 2024, when its records say proofing was done on 9 September 2024 after this was arranged with the resident. The resident also complained that no one attended to carry out pest control on 2 August 2024, which the evidence for is conflicting and unclear. The landlord’s stage 1 response said its pest contractor did not obtain access, while its stage 2 response said its pest contractor attempted to call the resident on 22 July and 2 August 2024.
  6. The evidence reasonably indicates that a visit was arranged with the resident on 2 August 2024, but unlike other visits with no access, it is not evident this was attended. The pest contractor eventually attended on 16 August 2024 due to their availability. As this was a main complaint point, it would have been helpful for the landlord to show the 2 August 2024 visit was investigated in a similar way to the 16 October 2024 visit.
  7. The landlord could also have shown it reviewed communication between the contractor and the resident. This includes for the 5 and 9 September 2024 pest control visits with no access, which we see no clear evidence were agreed with her. The evidence seen shows that the resident booked a proofing visit for 27 August 2024, and then re-booked this to 6 then 9 September 2024, when records show proofing was done. She said that her re-booking of the proofing visit was due to issues such as having to go into hospital and being unavailable until 9 September 2024, so it is unclear why a visit was attempted on 5 September 2024. This suggests the issue could have been managed and coordinated more effectively.
  8. The resident raised concerns to her housing officer about her neighbour’s garden contributing to the pest issue and the landlord’s stage 1 response noted the resident referred to unclean neighbours. It would have been helpful for the landlord to review this in more detail given the alleged link with the infestation. It is evident the landlord initially visited the neighbour in August 2024 and asked them to clear their garden. It was concerned with the speed of this when it re-visited and internally communicated about this in October 2024. It is not evident this was acted on until 2 months later. This undermines if the landlord responded as effectively and as timely as it could have.
  9. Overall, the evidence indicates there were some issues in the landlord’s investigation and response about the rodent infestation. It could have shown it more satisfactorily established what happened with the 2 August 2024 appointment and that it was not responsible for a 2-week delay between 2 and 16 August 2024 in pest contractors attending. It could have also shown it more satisfactorily reviewed records about the 5 and 9 September 2024 visits and the resident’s concerns about the resident’s neighbours. It is not clear that it ensured its responses were accurate which it is understandable may have undermined the resident’s confidence. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the rodent infestation.

The resident’s request to be moved

  1. The resident said she was staying with a family member on 23 July 2024, then raised further concerns about staying at the property in correspondence and calls between around 11 and 23 August 2024, due to concerns about the health risks the rodent issues posed to her and her unborn baby. She reported that the issue led her to stay for one period in a family member’s car.
  2. The landlord evidently took the resident’s concerns seriously.  It sought to carry out a joint visit with local authority care leaver staff on 16 August 2024 to ensure she generally felt supported. On 23 August 2024, staff including a manager discussed the resident’s concerns with her when she said she was sleeping in a car. The landlord subsequently said it did not normally move tenants for pest issues and would not move her in her circumstances. It evidently sought to reassure her that this was because the infestation was low and the poison was safe.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is vulnerable and she was very concerned about the situation and the potential health risks to her and her unborn baby. While we understand how distressing matters were for the resident and she felt she needed to stay away from the property for periods, it is not evident there was a failing in the decision not to move her, or that the landlord was obligated to waive rent in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord’s policies allow for it to consider a temporary or permanent move where a property is uninhabitable or unsafe, where a customer is at serious risk of harm from antisocial behaviour or domestic abuse, or where a customer is unable to access their home. The landlord clearly considered if these were applicable using relevant information and it is not evident they were. However, its overall response was not entirely satisfactory.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response noted that the resident was seeking to be relocated, but this and its stage 2 response did not address this in any way. This is not appropriate. The landlord should ensure that it reasonably addresses the points of a complaint. It should have addressed the resident’s request to move, and as part of this, considered the previous handling of her request. While this does not seem to have had a significant impact in this case, this will have undermined the resident’s confidence, which is not satisfactory. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the request to move.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified. This comprises £50 for the issues identified with the rodent infestation and £50 for the issues identified with the request to be moved.
  2. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 it previously offered.
  3. The landlord is recommended to ensure that its complaint responses reasonably investigate and address complaint points.
  4. The landlord is recommended to ensure that it processes internal tenancy breach requests in a timely manner.