Golding Homes Limited (202333825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333825

Golding Homes Limited

21 July 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. Pest issues in the resident’s property.
   2. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. Her tenancy started in July 2020, and she lived in the property with her child. The household lived with anxiety.
3. There were previous concerns around pests in the property in 2022. The resident wrote to her MP on 6 April 2023 to raise her concerns about repairs and rats on her balcony. Her MP sent her concerns to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns. She explained:
   1. She understood she lived near a train track, but she had told the landlord many times. It found a solution to prevent rats from getting into the bin shed, but it would not do anything around her balcony.
   2. Her child lived with anxiety due to fear of the rats and would not sleep in their own bed anymore. She said she was unable to open her windows or balcony door when it was hot, and this affected her mental health.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. It said in relation to the rat infestation:
   1. It had asked its contractor to attend her property to carry out an assessment and lay down some traps and bait. It raised the job on the day of its response, and the contractor would contact her by 17 May 2023 with an appointment. It would follow up with her on 18 May 2023 to ensure they had booked an appointment.
   2. Its compensation policy provided discretion to make offers of compensation where its service fell below expected levels. In line with its policy, it wanted to apologise for the service she received and made a discretionary offer of £50 compensation in recognition of her time and trouble in pursing the issue.
   3. It also wanted to offer an added £30 for the distress and inconvenience caused in line with its compensation policy. It had carried out further staff training on record keeping and it had reminded its staff of the importance of keeping clear, accurate and up to date records.
5. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 September 2023 expressing her dissatisfaction. She said she had emailed the landlord 10 times, and the issue remained outstanding. She said she had caught 11 mice which had chewed her cooker wire. She said she had to resolve the issue herself, and she did not think it realised the impact the issue had on hers and her child’s mental health. She expressed her dissatisfaction that no one had responded to her. She told it that she had contacted the local authority and her MP. She also said she could no longer live in the property anymore.
6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. It apologised that she had a problem with repairs to her home and ongoing problems with mice and rats. It said it identified that the issue within her initial complaint remained unresolved which was the reason for her escalation. It apologised for the level of service it provided and the fact it had not resolved her concerns. It:
   1. Said she told it that this was having a huge impact on her and her child who did not want to be in the property. This was understandable and not what it wanted for customers living in its homes.
   2. Apologised for the impact this had on them both and confirmed what the action plan was going forward.
   3. Said she confirmed that pest control visited her on 8 November 2023 and after not catching any mice in traps, they had set down some poison. They would contact her again directly to check how this had worked. They would also confirm  what work they needed to carry out to prevent further mice getting into the property.
   4. Explained that the delivery manager for its repairs service would check this report and raise the necessary repairs. It had asked one of its supervisors to visit and see if it could do anything to prevent rats and mice getting under the balcony.
   5. They were due to visit on 13 November 2023, and it aimed to complete all subsequent works identified before Christmas so that her family could enjoy a happy and peaceful festive period.
   6. It increased its compensation offer to £150 for the additional time it had taken it to resolve the problems for her.
7. The resident told us about the situation with the infestation on 28 December 2023. She said the landlord constantly ignored her and when it did eventually come out, it was not doing their jobs properly. She explained she still had pests running over her cooker and kitchen sides and could not cook in there anymore. She reiterated her concerns about the effects on her mental health and said it had attended to fix the holes the mice used to enter the property, but she still saw them, days after it completed the works. To rectify the issue, she said the landlord needed to:
   1. Take out the kitchen and sort every single hole out or;
   2. Move her from the property because she was unhappy with her living conditions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has raised concerns with the impact of the situation on hers and her child’s health. We are unable to consider such issues. This is because such considerations require a legal determination on causation and liability. The courts can make such decisions, as such the resident may wish to seek independent advice on this.

Handling of pests

9. The landlord’s repairs handbook said that it would go to residents’ homes and treat any type of pests. This was specialist work and may take longer to fully resolve than 20 working days, dependant on the type of pests in the home. It asked that residents report the problem to it as soon as they could as it may help reduce the time taken to get rid of pests.
10. Following the resident’s report of the pests in the property in April 2023, the landlord did not take prompt action to resolve the situation. It did not raise the repairs until May 2023. This was a delay of over a month. Its contractors then did not attend until June 2023. This was also a delay of over a month. Throughout this time, the resident continued to experience the infestation.
11. The resident reported that between June 2023 when the landlord’s contractors attended September 2023, she had raised her concerns to the landlord over 10 times as she continued to experience issues. We have not seen any evidence of this communication. She also told the landlord on 6 September 2023 that she had caught 11 mice.
12. From the evidence provided however we can see that from 6 September 2023 the resident raised numerous issues with the landlord. This included the ongoing issue with the pests, the impact on hers and her child’s mental health, its communication and lack of response to her messages. Later she confirmed her child was no longer living in the property with her due to the pest issue. She also told it that she had gotten rid of some of her electronics due to the pests, and that she no longer wanted to be in the property due to the pest issues on multiple occasions.
13. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not show that it considered acting around the resident’s mental health concerns until 20 October 2023, over a month after she raised her concerns. We would have expected the landlord to consider how it needed to support the resident much sooner than it did. The failure to act within a reasonable timeframe was inappropriate.
14. Even though the resident told it that she continued to have issues with the pests repeatedly between 6 September 2023 and October 2023, the evidence provided shows that it did not take any action around this until 27 October 2023 where its contractor contacted her to confirm an appointment. They then attended on 31 October 2023, over a month after the evidence provided demonstrates she raised her concerns again. This was unreasonable.
15. We would have expected the landlord to consider whether it needed to act much sooner than it did and consider whether it had any obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. It has not shown that it did and this was inappropriate. This is because the pests had the potential to affect the resident’s private and family life. For example, she explained that the issue affected hers and her child’s mental health and led to her child moving from the property.
16. The evidence also shows that there were issues with the landlord’s communication as it told the resident in September that it would have a senior member of staff contact her by 20 September 2023. She told it on 29 September that nobody had contacted her. It also told her in October 2023 that it would have the same member of staff contact her within 5 working days. It asked that someone contact her on 3 November 2023 urgently but has provided no evidence that it contacted her. As such it is unclear whether it did contact the resident and this raises questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
17. Following the contractors visit on 31 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that her concerns continue between November 2023 and December 2023. In November 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended and laid down poison as an alternative measure to deal with the situation. Within its stage 2 response it told the resident that it aimed to complete works to address the issue before Christmas. While it did fill some holes, the issue continued into 2024. As such it did not meet the promise it made in its stage 2 response, and this was inappropriate.
18. Its contractor attended again in February 2024 and found 1 mouse in one of the traps. During its next visit, they found that there was uptake on some of the bait. They however removed the traps on their final visit following the landlord’s instruction. The landlord told us that it had disposed of the property in July 2024. The resident explained to us in July 2025 that the landlord moved her to a different flat in March 2025 as the pest issue continued.
19. Throughout the landlord’s handling of the issue, there were several failings. It failed to act promptly around the resident’s concerns. The evidence suggests it did not maintain regular communication around the issue, and despite the resident’s repeated concerns about the issues with her family’s mental health it did not consider the family’s vulnerabilities reasonably as it delayed in doing so. While it did move the resident from the property, this was after a substantial amount of time. Based on this we find that there was maladministration.
20. While the landlord did offer the resident compensation this was in relation to both the repairs to her property and the pest issue. It did not specifically identify how much of its compensation related to the pest issue. We also note that it offered a further £30 for issues around planning works in, in October 2023. This took its total offer to £180. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it considers our remedies guidance. It also says it will consider if its action or lack of action made the situation worse. It provided the example of if it (including its contractors cause the failure or fault which led to loss or inconvenience. It also provided the example of repeated failures.
21. In line with our remedies guidance, we have considered the length of time the issue remained outstanding between April 2023 and March 2023, and the failings found in this report. Based on this we order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

The complaint

22. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving the complaint.
23. The resident complained to her MP on 6 April 2023. The MP forwarded the complaint to the landlord on the same day. The landlord then did not acknowledge the complaint until 27 April 2023. This is 9 working days later than it should have done, and this was not in keeping with its policy.
24. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. As it should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 14 April 2023, its response was therefore due by 28 April 2023. This means there was a delay of 5 working days in providing its stage 1 response. It has not shown that it kept the resident informed of the delay, or that it requested an extension in line with its policy. Its actions were inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy.
25. The resident then told the landlord on 13 June 2023 that she had heard nothing from its pest control contractor or in relation to another repair. The pest control team then attended 2 days later. We appreciate that the resident explained that she continued to raise concerns with the landlord between June 2023 and September 2023. However, we have seen no evidence of this. The landlord however did not appropriately recognise within a reasonable time that the resident’s email on 6 September 2023 was an expression of dissatisfaction, and it should have escalated her complaint.
26. The landlord did not recognise this until October 2023 where it acknowledged her escalation on 11 October 2023, over a month later and this was unreasonable. It should have acknowledged her escalation by 13 September 2023. As such the stage 2 response was due by 11 October 2023, the day it acknowledged her escalation.
27. The landlord then further delayed in providing its stage 2 response. However, it acknowledged this and asked the resident for extensions to provide the response. It provided its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. This was 29 days later than it should have. While it did request extensions to provide its response late, this was significantly after the response was already due. Its actions were inappropriate, led to a delay in the complaint handling process and not in keeping with its policies.
28. Further in the resident’s escalation request, she explained that it had not responded to 10 previous emails between June 2023 and September 2023. We would have expected the landlord to provide some level of response to this. It did not respond and has not shown that it considered this. This shows poor investigation into the resident’s concerns, a lack of customer focus, and poor complaint handling.
29. In summary, the landlord delayed across its responses and did not show that it investigated or responded to all of the concerns raised by the resident within her complaint. Based on this we find that there was maladministration.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failings in either of its responses. While it offered the resident compensation across both, it is unclear whether this also related to its complaint handling failings. To put things right in line with our remedies guidance, we order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Pest issues in the resident’s property.
    2. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

32. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £480. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £180. It should subtract any amounts already paid to the resident from the total.
    3. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for its complaint handling failings.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.