Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202325057)

Background

1. The resident has stated that she is vulnerable but has not provided specific details to the landlord. She reported ant infestations at her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of ant infestations and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of ant infestations and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of ant infestations and associated repairs

4. The landlord dismissed the resident’s concerns and delayed acting until she made a complaint.
5. While the landlord maintained that ants were the resident’s responsibility, it did not fully consider its separate repair obligations. It delayed brickwork repairs beyond its published timescales.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord incorrectly treated the resident’s first stage 1 complaint as an “informal complaint”.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we didn’t investigate

7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated they were aware of the ant infestations from around June 2021. They raised a formal complaint on 20 April 2023. We will investigate the complaint 12 months prior to the complaint being made.

What we did investigate

Reports of an ant infestation

8. The resident reported ant infestations to the landlord several times in August 2022. The landlord’s pest control guidance for residents says ants fall under the resident’s responsibilities. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to resolve the issue. The resident arranged her own pest control, but it did not get rid of the problem. The landlord maintained that the resident was responsible. However, it did visit in August and September 2022 to investigate. Each time it found no ants and took no further action.
9. On 13 April 2023, the resident reported another infestation. The landlord again said it was her responsibility but asked for evidence to understand the scale of the problem. The resident was unable to provide evidence. She made a complaint on 20 April 2023 as she felt the landlord was not taking appropriate action. The landlord agreed to arrange pest control. It was fair for the landlord to take this action, however this was only done once the resident made a complaint. Pest control attended 3 times and found no evidence of ants. In the following months, the resident made further reports. The landlord said there would be no more pest control visits because no evidence had been found.
10. On 31 August 2023, the resident raised another complaint. She wanted further pest control visits and for entry points to be identified and sealed. She also said the landlord had not told her that the 3rd pest control visit would be the final one. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and apologised for not being clearer. It did not uphold the complaint that refusing further visits was a service failure. It said it had already told the resident that ants were her responsibility, and it had exceeded its normal service by arranging the earlier visits. The resident wanted the landlord to commit to further pest control visits when the ants were active and to eliminate any nests. The landlord refused, as previous visits found no evidence of ants and the resident had not provided evidence showing the extent of the problem.

Associated repairs

11. At the 3rd pest control visit on 20 June 2023, the operative saw no ant activity but recommended that the landlord fill holes in the brickwork to block entry points. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete non-urgent repairs, including brickwork repairs, within 60 working days. By the time the resident made her complaint on 31 August 2023, the landlord had not acted on this recommendation. It apologised for the delay and raised an inspection for 4 October 2023, with repairs to follow.
12. The landlord inspected the property on 4 October 2023. It found no evidence of ants but identified holes that needed filling. It then booked follow-up repair work for 14 November 2023. This was 105 working days after the landlord was first told about the brickwork holes, well beyond the 60 working day timescale.
13. The resident believed the ants were nesting inside the property, so she did not think external repairs would help. She continued to report ants during warm weather in 2024 and 2025. The landlord maintained that ants were her responsibility and refused further pest control visits. During a damp and mould inspection in September 2024, a surveyor raised repairs for some holes to be filled inside the property. It is not clear if these repairs were completed but the resident reported ants again in 2025.

Summary

14. When there are failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord accepted and apologised that it did not make it clear that the 3rd pest control visit would be the last. The landlord also apologised for the delay in actioning the recommendation for repairs but did not offer any redress. The landlord did not fully put things right in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
16. The resident remains anxious about future infestations in warm weather. She has reported infestations every spring/summer since she moved into the property in 2021. However, it is not possible to say whether the issue will return this year.
17. Although the landlord continued to state that ant infestations were the resident’s responsibility, it did take some steps to investigate and block entry points. These actions were positive, but they did not resolve the resident’s concerns, and she continued to report issues during warm weather in 2024 and 2025. The landlord has told the resident not to report further infestations, despite inspections previously identifying potential access routes. Sealing these areas has not resolved the problem. While ants themselves may not be the landlord’s responsibility, repairs to brickwork and plastering are.
18. The landlord has said it will not accept further reports of issues related to infestations. It did not correctly manage the resident’s expectations around the pest control visits. It delayed repairs to the brickwork. It has not offered redress for these failings. This amounts to service failure.We have made an order for compensation.

19. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 edition (the Code). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. For complex cases, it may extend either stage by up to 10 working days. This was in line with the Code at the time of the complaint.
20. The resident first raised her stage 1 complaint on 20 April 2023. The landlord contacted her the same day, and she agreed not to make a formal complaint because the landlord said it would arrange pest control. The landlord’s complaint policy has two stages, in line with the Code. It allows an “informal” approach only when an issue can be resolved quickly, and only with the resident’s agreement. This issue required investigation, so it was not suitable for an informal stage.
21. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint again on 31 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged and responded within its timescales. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 September 2023, and the landlord again acknowledged and responded on time.
22. The complaint responses were thorough and clear, addressing all points required by the Code. However, treating the resident’s first stage 1 complaint as an “informal complaint” was a service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord kept clear records of inspections, appointments and communication. This gave a good account of events and demonstrated good information management.

Communication

24. The landlord did not make it clear that the 3rd pest control visit would be the final one. Clearer communication would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and reduced uncertainty.

Repairs

25. The landlord delayed completing brickwork repairs far beyond its target. This undermined confidence in its commitment to addressing identified issues.
26. The landlord applied its pest guidance but did not fully consider its repair obligations. Even when pests are the resident’s responsibility, the landlord remains responsible for repairs.

Infestation

27. The landlord only arranged pest control after the resident made a complaint, despite earlier reports. Complaints should not be used as a trigger for service action.