ForHousing Limited (202447458)

Background

1. In January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to report that rats were entering her property. The landlord carried out pest control treatments but the problem was ongoing. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord to update that she’d left the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

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

Reasons

4. The landlord’s update to us dated 29 January 2026 advised there was no pest control policy in place at the time of the complaint. However, it said that it was responsible for the cost of treatment and repairs when pests were accessing a property due to repairs or property damage. Its repairs procedure says it will carry out routine repairs within 30 working days. Its decant policy says that moves to temporary accommodation can be arranged to allow essential works to be carried out.
5. In her call to the landlord of 15 January 2025 the resident said rats were coming in through a hole in the wall that was exposed after her boiler was replaced. She advised there were droppings on the kitchen worktops. The landlord said it would raise repairs and arrange for a pest control treatment. Its response was in line with its responsibilities. On 20 January 2025 the resident called the landlord to chase and it raised an order to inspect the access points. While this was positive, it’s unclear why this was not done following her initial call. Given the nature of the issue it would’ve been appropriate for the landlord to expedite the repairs.
6. On 27 January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord again to say that the treatment had not worked. She said that overnight she’d seen rats in the living room and bedroom and had left the property. The call handler said they’d informed the neighbourhood officer and their manager. However, there’s no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the situation. There’s also no evidence that it took steps to satisfy itself that the property was in a habitable condition considering the resident’s circumstances, including that she had young children.
7. Having inspected the property the previous day, on 28 January 2025 the landlord raised a repair to fill the access points. It also asked its gas team to attend on 3 February 2025 to cap the gas so it could remove the boiler and fill the hole. The gas team failed to attend, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. In her complaint, also dated 3 February 2025, she asked the landlord to waive the rent for the period she’d been unable to live at the property. During a call with the landlord that same day she expressed frustration about a lack of communication and not being able to live at the property. There’s no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns, which was inappropriate.
8. On 4 February 2025 the landlord raised another job for the gas team to attend. It sent a chaser the following day, and when there was no response it escalated the matter on 7 February 2025. It chased again on 10 February 2025. While this was positive, it was unreasonable that 7 days after its non-attendance it had not rescheduled the appointment. The further delays compounded the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
9. Works to cap the gas took place on 11 February 2025. The kitchen was also removed, so access points could be filled, and was reinstated the next day. However, the hole behind the boiler was left open. By now it was 23 working days after the resident first identified it as being one of the access points. While it was positive that the landlord chased works on 17 February 2025, the lack of progress was unreasonable given the circumstances.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 February 2025 to chase because the gas was still capped. She again reiterated she was not living in her property. She highlighted that rats could still gain access through the hole and that there was no heating or hot water. On 25 February 2025 the landlord carried out works to the boiler to allow the hole to be filled. While this was positive, the gas had been capped for 14 days between 11 and 25 February 2025. While we acknowledge the resident was not living at the property, it was an additional barrier to her returning home. On 28 February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to say some holes still needed to be filled. It attended that day and resolved the outstanding issues.
11. The issue was first reported on 15 January 2025. It took the landlord 32 working days to fully resolve the issues. Given the situation and the resident’s circumstances, it would’ve been reasonable for the landlord to have expedited the repairs. However, a lack of oversight of the repairs process caused delays and communication failures. Furthermore, it did not consider the resident’s concerns about whether the property was habitable and did not take steps to satisfy itself and her that it was.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 April 2025 acknowledged “significant delays” in arranging and completing works. It acknowledged the distress caused by the pest infestation. However, it said it did not arrange temporary accommodation for pest related issues and therefore would not compensate for this. It offered £300 compensation for inconvenience and £100 for the loss of heating and hot water. It also offered an additional £100 towards redecoration costs for damage caused during works.
13. The landlord did not identify its failure to address the resident’s concerns about occupying the property. It therefore missed the opportunity to learn fully from the complaint and put things right. Our finding has considered the compensation offered by the landlord to try to put right the failures it identified. However, we do not consider it was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures we’ve identified above. Therefore, it has been ordered to pay £600 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the failure had an adverse effect on the resident but did not have a permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £500 set out above if this has already been paid.

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.

Recommendations

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