Home Group Limited (202332893)

Decision
Case ID	202332893
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The property is a semi-detached house. It was a new build when the resident moved there in 2013. She lives with her daughter and 2 sons.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of rats in the property.
   2. Formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of rats in the property. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord made efforts to address the rat infestation but failed in its communication to the resident.
6. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling but it offered appropriate compensation for this.

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	Single point of contact     The landlord must provide evidence it has appointed a senior member of landlord staff to be the resident’s single point of contact. This person must commit to updating the resident at least fortnightly until the rats are eradicated.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Action plan     The landlord must provide evidence of an action plan to eradicate the infestation and prevent its return. It must provide a copy of, and explain, the plan to the resident. It must include clear timescales and robust, additional measures to those that have already failed.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 January 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of rats. She said the housing officer had not returned her calls for a month.
1 March 2023	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 update letter. It gave plans for future works and said the complaint would be kept open until the issue was resolved.
20 November 2023	In the absence of a stage 1 response, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2.
23 November 2023	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It outlined the works it had done to address the reports of rats and apologised for the time the issue had been ongoing.
18 January 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It explained the actions taken so far and set out what else was planned.
17 September 2024	The landlord gave another stage 2 response. It said it had tried very hard to resolve the issue but apologised for the impact on the resident. It offered £4,000 compensation (£500 for time and effort spent chasing the landlord, £1,000 for failure to resolve the rat infestation, £500 for disruption and inconvenience, £1,000 for distress caused, £500 for impact of managed move process, and £500 for complaint handling failures).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident says the issue is still ongoing and she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

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	Handling of reports of rats in the property
Finding	Maladministration

7. In January 2023 the resident reported to the landlord there were rats inside and around the property. She was promised a call back from her housing officer but this did not happen. The resident had to chase the landlord for an initial response which was unfair.
8. Throughout 2023 the landlord took a number of actions such as baiting, clearing the loft space, filling holes and installing drain valves. None of this was effective and the rat infestation worsened. While the landlord made attempts to address the problem, much of this was continually prompted by the resident. She had to chase for tasks to be completed and for updates. She felt she was co-ordinating everything with little progress.
9. The resident said it had a detrimental impact on her health. She suffered anxiety and could not sleep. This was due to the stress and worry of the situation but also because the rats kept her awake at night as she could hear them running around. The resident’s son was affected and could not stay awake at school. This resulted in the school becoming involved as it was concerned for his welfare. The resident’s MP also advocated for her.
10. The landlord was aware of the extent of this impact. Individual staff members appeared sympathetic and committed to finding a resolution but there was a lack of continuity, in both action and communication. There was a repetition of pest control actions that had previously failed. The resident felt that she had to explain everything again to new staff members she spoke to. This was ineffective.
11. According to its housing allocation policy, the landlord may use management transfers to move residents to alternative accommodation. This is for emergency situations where the property poses an immediate risk. The resident’s request to move was declined twice as the landlord did not deem her to fit the strict criteria. It then accepted that a move should be offered. It was disappointing it took 3 attempts for this decision to be made. The need for a strict criteria is understood but the landlord was aware of how seriously impacted the resident was. This was evidenced by the fact the landlord offered the resident respite in a hotel in November 2023.
12. The landlord offered the resident an alternative property on the same street in September 2024. As it had told her the whole estate was affected by rats it was understandable she declined this property as she was concerned about disrupting her family with a move only to have the same issue. The landlord should stay committed to assisting the resident with suitable, alternative accommodation if it cannot resolve the issue.
13. Three years after the initial report, the rat infestation is still ongoing. The resident has suffered much disruption through intrusive but ineffective works. The landlord has done a lot of work to try to stop rats entering the property. As well as filling holes and installing rat proof mesh, it created a concrete barrier to surround the ground level of the property. The resident believes the rats are coming from the neighbour’s property, which is attached to hers. This is an informed point of view, from information received from contractors and visible piles of rubbish in the neighbour’s garden. We are not aware of the neighbour’s position and are aware of data protection boundaries. However the landlord should remain committed to establishing and addressing the root cause of the rats.
14. On 30 May 2025 the landlord told us it had committed to contacting the resident fortnightly to monitor the situation. It failed to do this. The resident did not receive regular contact and had to chase the landlord for updates. Following the resident making a further complaint about the lack of communication, the landlord responded on 26 August 2025. It accepted it had failed in its commitment and again promised it would be in contact fortnightly.
15. On 27 January 2026 the resident told us the landlord has not been in contact, so it has failed again. The ongoing lack of communication about an issue that is causing the resident such distress is unreasonable and unfair. The continued failure to update and communicate with the resident amounts to maladministration.
16. We appreciate the difficulty in finding the source of the rats and stopping them from entering the property. However the landlord has an obligation to the resident to continue trying all available options and not stop until the problem is solved. This should not be dependant on the resident chasing the matter. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places responsibility on the landlord to maintain the property in a habitable condition. This includes it being free of vermin.
17. The £3,500 compensation offered by landlord for the substantive issue is in line with our remedies guidance for the significant impact its failure had on the resident. This has been paid to the resident so no recommendation is made in that regard.
18. The resident said she does not want the landlord to forget about her. She wants her case to be treated as a priority and the rats to be eradicated. The resident does not want to keep going around in circles and dealing with different staff members. This desired resolution is reasonable and our orders are made to support that. The landlord must provide a named point of contact who will update the resident regularly. It is also ordered to produce a written action plan setting out how it intends to tackle the infestation problem going forward.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 31 January 2023 but it was not passed to the complaints team until 13 February 2023. By that point it had already reached the 10-working day target for a formal complaint response under the landlord’s complaint policy.
20. The landlord gave a stage 1 update on 1 March 2023. It said it would keep the complaint open until the issues were resolved. While the intention may have been positive to ensure accountability, it unnecessarily delayed the complaint process.
21. The stage 1 response was ultimately given on 23 November 2023, nearly 10 months after the resident made the complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s policy, which says extensions to the 10-day target should only be for an additional 10 days. Further, the stage 1 response was prompted by the resident chasing the landlord on 20 November 2023 and asking for escalation. This was unfair and an unreasonable delay.
22. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 November 2023 and the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 January 2024. This was more than its target of 20 working days and was not in line with its policy. The response was detailed and explained the steps taken so far. The landlord was honest that further actions were needed.
23. The landlord gave a further stage 2 response on 17 September 2024. The intention and content seemed positive, to inform the resident of progress and further action taken. However it was not in line with its policy. It was at this stage the landlord offered compensation. This was 10 months after the resident escalated the complaint and 20 months after she first made it. This meant she had been waiting a long time for complaint resolution, which was a failure.
24. The delays in complaint handling did not affect the substantive issue, which offers some mitigation. There is evidence the landlord was attempting to address the rat infestation throughout this time. However the delays in complaint responses added to the resident’s uncertainty and loss of trust in the landlord.
25. The landlord offered £500 for its complaint handling delays. This was reasonable redress and in line with our remedies guidance for this level of failure, which adversely affected the resident. This sum has been paid to the resident, so there is no recommendation made in that regard.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. There were sufficient records to allow for this investigation.

Communication

27. There was a continued lack of communication from the landlord to the resident, as explained throughout the report.