Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202422287)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422287

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

29 August 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a mice infestation and the level of compensation offered.
    2. Concerns about staff behaviour.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the deed of assignment dated June 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to her sight.
  2. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first reported the mice infestation. She raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 May 2024, saying that:
    1. Previous pest treatment had not worked, and she had blocked up entry points at her own expense.
    2. The mice had chewed through wiring, and the landlord’s contractor had damaged a skirting board in the bedroom.
    3. The mice were “invading” her home and running around the kitchen.
    4. The situation was affecting her mental health and felt the landlord was not taking the issue seriously.
  3. The same day (29 May 2024), the landlord liaised internally, noting that it had not received any reports of an infestation at the property since 2021. It suggested a pest control contractor attend and carry out a treatment.
  4. On 5 June 2024, a pest control inspection was carried out. The inspection report indicated mice activity in most rooms, with numerous gaps and holes serving as entry points that needed sealing. The contractor recommended a follow-up visit after the pest proofing had been completed and noted that a quote had been sent to the landlord for approval.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 6 June 2024. It outlined its understanding of the complaint and explained that its contractor had identified several areas that required baiting, sealing, and repairing. It stated that the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the necessary appointments and that additional follow-up visits might be needed. The landlord also said that it upheld the resident’s complaint.
  6. On 7 June 2024, a job was raised for pest proofing work to be carried out and scheduled for attendance on 25 June 2024.
  7. On 25 June 2024, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She explained that following a visit in March 2024, contractors had removed a skirting board but had not replaced it, which allowed mice to enter the bedroom. She stated that she had reported the issue “straight away”, but no one attended until 5 June 2024. She said that the situation was affecting her mental health and mentioned that an appointment scheduled for 25 June 2024 had been cancelled without explanation. She praised the contractor who attended to block the holes and repair the skirting board, stating they did a “great job”. Additionally, she said that she wanted to submit an insurance claim for damages to her bed and carpets, which she said had been ruined by pest activity.
  8. On 24 July 2024, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, made up of £100 for a mattress and £50 for ongoing issues. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024. In this, it detailed the action it had taken, including a table of events. It also noted that the infestation had not been continually reported by the resident, with the last pest reports dating back to 2021. Furthermore, it said that its contractor had responded promptly and that the photographic evidence did not indicate any damage to the resident’s belongings. The landlord concluded that it could not increase the £150 compensation previously offered.
  9. Between August and November 2024 a further 4 pest control visits were carried out, and the resident confirmed the issue was resolved in December 2024. The resident advised this Service in May 2025 that she felt the landlord had not acknowledged her health issues when dealing with the matter or “made an appropriate apology” and compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion … are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
  3. On 9 May 2025, the resident advised this Service that her main concern was “the way she was treated” and that she felt “bullied and ignored in 2021”. She also made reference to staff comments when she requested to be moved. There was no evidence to suggest that this matter was raised by the resident or addressed by the landlord during the complaint process between May and August 2024. Therefore, in our view, this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

  1. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others.
  2. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for health impacts or damage to their personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. It is noted that insurers specialise in resolving liability matters. Alternatively, landlords can address some issues through their own internal complaints’ procedure. This approach could be applied to a small number of damaged items. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.

Reports of a mice infestation and the level of compensation offered

  1. The British Pest Control Association (BPCA) is the professional organisation for the UK’s public health pest management industry. It says it promotes the highest standards of professionalism within the industry, allowing only organisations that prove their competence to join as members. The BPCA outlines the responsibilities and correct practices that its members are expected to adhere to. The landlord’s pest control contractor is a member of the BPCA.
  2. The landlord’s pest control procedure, which its contractors must adhere to, says:
    1. The service provider will contact the customer within 24 hours of receipt of an order from the landlord, to arrange a convenient appointment and commence disinfestation within 3 days of the works order being placed.
    2. If facilitation of the works order requires additional work (e.g. the removal of floorboards or gas appliances), the service provider will notify the landlord. The landlord will then raise the appropriate job order and liaise with the resident and pest control officer to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for the works to be completed.
    3. The service provider will issue a monthly report to the landlord with details of all jobs completed, the addresses, type of infestation and related cost.
    4. In relation to customer complaints, all issues or queries should be reported in the first instance to the service provider which will endeavour to resolve them immediately. Residents who wish to make a formal complaint about the service provider should contact the landlord directly. All complaints will be responded to within 10 days.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 May 2024 via the landlord’s online complaint form. She provided details of ongoing problems that persisted despite what she said were previous attempts by the landlord to address the issue. This included mice activity and the earlier removal of a skirting board by the landlord. The resident said that she had undertaken measures at her own expense to try and eliminate the mice problem. She also expressed her distress, citing health concerns and damage to her belongings.
  4. According to internal records, the landlord said the last recorded pest treatment prior to her complaint was in 2021, implying a gap of over 2 years without reported issues. The landlord also noted that a pest control visit was raised on 23 May 2024 and said it had not yet received any report from the contractor regarding this matter. We consider this reasonable, as the pest control procedure specifies that the landlord should receive monthly reports of all completed jobs, meaning the reporting period (May 2024) had not yet elapsed.
  5. On 3 June 2024, the landlord liaised with the contractor requesting it take photos of any damage identified. The case notes show that the contractor attended on 5 June 2024, which was within 3 days of the works order being raised and aligned with its procedure. The pest control report identified mice activity in multiple rooms and numerous entry points which required sealing. It also suggested a follow-up visit post proofing. These actions were in line with the BPCA code of best practice, which says it is important to review approaches to pest control holistically and integrate a range of control measures into the treatment strategy. It goes on to say consideration should be given to all available controls, not just the use of rodenticides, but also simple measures such as proofing the property. It was also good practice to carry out follow-up visits to ensure effectiveness, which has also been evidenced as taking place.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 June 2024, in which it outlined its understanding of the resident’s complaint and explained the process for addressing the pest issue. It also noted that various contractors, including a joiner, would need to attend to access difficult areas and to carry out repairs following the pest proofing works. The landlord’s response was positive because it demonstrated its proactive approach to the resident’s complaint, ensuring she was informed about the steps being taken. By clearly communicating the process and the need for multiple contractors, it helped set realistic expectations and demonstrated its commitment to resolving the complaint.
  7. A further job was raised on 7 June 2024 regarding pest proofing. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 June 2024, expressing disappointment because she was initially given an appointment date of 18 June 2024, which was rescheduled by the contractor to 25 June 2024. The case notes indicated the landlord attempted to contact the contractor to reschedule the appointment earlier but was unsuccessful due to the contractor’s availability. The landlord also conveyed to the contractor that the situation was “unsatisfactory”.
  8. Although the additional works did not fall within the 3-day policy timescale and instead were to be agreed upon as a “mutually convenient appointment”, the delay and rescheduling evidently caused frustration for the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord made efforts to try and bring the appointment forward to better assist the resident. The landlord appropriately addressed the matter with the contractor but could have gone further by explaining to the resident the action it took in raising the matter to better demonstrate it was taking her concerns seriously.
  9. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 25 June 2024. She said that previous works were carried out whereby a skirting board was removed, allowing entry for the mice into her bedroom, and that she had been experiencing a mice infestation for “weeks”. She said that she had been stressed and worried by unnecessary delays. She went on to say that a contractor had visited that same day and had “blocked up all holes and fixed my skirting boards and did a great job”. The landlord carried out the skirting board repair and proofing works within 28 days of being notified. We consider this to be a reasonable timescale and consistent with its routine repair policy timescale.
  10. On 12 July 2024, the landlord liaised with the contractor, which confirmed the works had been completed and recommended a follow-up visit. The landlord then contacted the resident, who confirmed “all holes were filled” and she was “quite happy” with the work. This demonstrated effective communication from the landlord by obtaining confirmation from both the contractor and resident that the work had been completed satisfactorily.
  11. The case notes show that on 24 July 2024 the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, made up of £100 for a mattress and £50 for ongoing issues. The resident declined this offer, and on 26 July 2024 reported that there was still a mice infestation within the property. This was attended to by the contractor on 30 July 2024, with the case notes saying that the resident “didn’t want poison down just the holes filling”. Additionally, a joiner and plumber were required to remove a sink and kitchen unit to allow completion of the proofing works. Although this visit was 1 day outside of the landlord’s 3-day policy timescale, we do not consider it an unreasonable delay, albeit a minor failure that caused little additional detriment to the resident.
  12. The BPCA code of best practice says that in order to provide long-term control of mice infestation, efforts should be concentrated on improving hygiene and proofing, maintenance, and repair of buildings. Therefore the landlord’s continued efforts to proof the property were in line with recommended practice.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024. It said that it had completed a comprehensive review and provided a table of “visits and activities”. This approach effectively detailed the action the landlord had taken. It said that its contractor had “acted swiftly” in trying to resolve the matter and there was no evidence indicating that the resident’s belongings had been damaged. It went on to say that, as a result, it could not increase its compensation offer. The landlord’s response was reasonable and was transparent in its decision making regarding the requested increase in compensation.
  14. The case notes indicated that the proofing works were completed in August 2024. The resident reported that the infestation returned in October 2024 but also confirmed that the issue was fully resolved by December 2024. According to the BPCA, once an infestation becomes established, it can be challenging to control, and the primary focus should be on preventing infestations from occurring in the first place. The return of the infestation was a possible outcome, considering the BPCA’s guidance on the difficulty of controlling established infestations. The recurrence does not necessarily indicate a failure in the proofing process but reflects the inherent challenges in pest control once an infestation has taken hold.
  15. In summary, the landlord conducted 5 treatments between May and August 2024 along with efforts to address the mice entry points, which reflected a positive intent by the landlord to resolve the issue. The landlord’s pest control operatives having membership of the BPCA demonstrates the landlord’s intention to follow professional best practices, which is also positive. We find the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation reflected an acknowledgment of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the 3-month period between May and August 2024. Therefore, we consider this reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will provide a response to the complainant within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At the final stage, it will respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalated complaint. It will acknowledge both complaints and escalation requests within 5 days of receipt.
  2. The policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation”.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 29 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 30 May 2024, via telephone, confirming the details of the complaint and so adhering to its policy. It was good practice by the landlord to confirm the particulars of the complaint with the resident, as it showed her that the complaint was being taken seriously and allowed the landlord to understand the nature of the issues and prioritise any investigation accordingly.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 June 2024. This was 6 working days later and within its policy timescale, which was appropriate.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 25 June 2024. This request was made via the landlord’s online “compliments form”. Nevertheless, the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the mice issue, and therefore her communication should have been treated as an escalation request.
  6. The case notes showed that the landlord contacted the resident on 12 July 2024 to discuss the works that had been carried out, and the resident confirmed she was “quite happy”. While this was not an acknowledgement of the complaint as per its policy, it was appropriate that the landlord liaised with the resident and kept her updated. The landlord did, however, deviate from its complaint policy by not acknowledging the escalated complaint within 5 days, which was not appropriate.
  7. On 24 July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and offered her a total of £150 compensation. The case notes say she was not happy with this offer and wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The offer of compensation outside of the stage 1 response may have caused confusion for the resident, especially because she had already expressed dissatisfaction on 25 June 2024, suggesting the complaint should have been escalated at that point. The timing of the escalation being recorded as 24 July could have led to a delay and a misunderstanding about when the stage 2 response was due.
  8. On 31 July 2024, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024, which was 30 working days after her escalation request. This was contrary to the 20-working-day policy timescale, and not appropriate.
  9. In summary, the landlord demonstrated some good practice when dealing with the resident’s complaint. However, she expended time and trouble chasing the complaint and overall, it failed to consistently adhere to its policy timescales. For example, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 within 5 days, offered compensation after its stage 1 response was provided, and sent its stage 2 response 6 working days outside of its policy timescale. It also did not review its complaint handling or identify and redress any failures at stage 2. This meant it missed an opportunity to take learning from the complaint.
  10. For the reasons outlined above, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and £100 compensation has been awarded. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where there has been a “service failure of short duration”.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff behaviour is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation and the level of compensation offered.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to her complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £150 compensation it previously offered to her if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this payment is made.
    2. If appropriate, makes contact with the resident to assist her with making a claim on its own insurance policy should she so wish.