Sanctuary Housing Association (202427657)

Background

1. The resident first reported issues with mice entering his property which the landlord treated in both 2021 and 2022. A new report was made by the resident in 2023, and the landlord’s actions indicated this may have been due to an entry point within the resident’s kitchen.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. a pest control issue
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. a pest control issue
   2. the resident’s complaint

Summary of reasons

Pest control

4. The landlord recognised where its service fell short, apologised, and offered compensation, which reflects the prolonged disruption, distress, and inconvenience caused. It committed to completing outstanding repairs, which were then resolved promptly following the stage 2 complaint response. Taken together, the landlord’s actions were sufficient to put matters right.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond to the stage 2 complaint within the required timescale, apologised, and offered compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused. The compensation amount aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. As the delay did not affect the substantive outcome of the complaint, the redress offered was proportionate and sufficient to put matters right.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 have not looked at

6. We understand this issue occurred intermittently from 2010. However, this investigation focuses on the more recent reports made between August 2023 and January 2025, which the landlord considered in its complaint response. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the issue arising. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate the matter.
7. The resident told us he reported a new pest control issue in August 2025. As this is a new matter and has not been through the landlord’s complaint process, we have not included it in this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to his August 2025 report, he should raise this as a new complaint with the landlord

What we have looked at

8. The landlord has confirmed it does not have a separate pest control policy and instead deals with pest issues under its repairs policy. That policy states it will arrange an appointment within 24 hours of an assessment and aims to complete routine repairs within 45 calendar days.
9. After the resident reported a pest issue in August 2023, the landlord asked a contractor to assess the property. On 10 August 2023 the contractor identified potential entry points for pests and installed bait traps and other treatment. It also recommended filling the holes where the pests were entering. The landlord raised a repair order to fill the holes and scheduled an appointment for 31 August 2023. The landlord met the repair policy timescales at this stage.
10. At the resident’s request, the repair was rebooked for 18 September 2023. When the contractor attended, it identified that a joiner was required and could not complete the work. The appointment was then rearranged for 9 November 2023. This delay was unreasonable and did not align with the repairs policy, which aims to complete repairs promptly and, where possible, in one visit. This caused the resident distress.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 September 2023 to raise concerns that the repair remained outstanding. The evidence shows the landlord then attempted to contact the resident several times and left voicemails to arrange the work. It also attempted to attend the property on 17 October, 26 October, and 9 November 2023. On each occasion access was not gained, and the landlord closed the job due to no access.
12. The repairs policy does not set out when repairs should be closed due to no access. However, it states that if a resident misses an appointment, a new one will be arranged when the resident re-contacts the landlord. The landlord attempted to contact the resident before and during each appointment. We therefore consider the landlord’s actions between September and November 2023 to be reasonable.
13. The resident reported a further pest issue on 14 December 2023, and the landlord raised a new job for its contractor to attend. After completing a treatment programme, the contractor recommended filling holes. On 11 January 2024 it told the landlord that the sink would need to be removed to allow access to the holes. An appointment was arranged for 26 January 2024. The landlord’s actions following the December 2023 report were reasonable, as it responded promptly and arranged treatment and follow‑on works within its policy timescales.
14. Operatives attended the property on 26 and 29 January 2024 to turn off the water and remove the sink. However, the work was not completed on either date because the landlord had not arranged for the pest contractor to attend at the same time to fill the holes. This lack of coordination between contractors was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
15. Between 29 January and 16 April 2024 the landlord took no action and did not communicate with the resident about the pest issue. Its repairs policy states it will communicate proactively, but this did not happen during this 3‑month period. The lack of updates or action led to the resident making a complaint and caused further time, trouble and inconvenience.
16. The landlord re‑raised the repairs on 9 May 2024. On 12 September 2024 the pest contractor confirmed it had already closed the pest control job raised in December 2023 and that it was still awaiting the landlord to complete the joint work with a plumber to fill the holes. This shows that no progress had been made in the 4 months following the stage 1 complaint response. This was unreasonable and did not meet the landlord’s commitment to track and monitor outstanding repairs, which continued to distress the resident.
17. On 12 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to check whether the pest issue was still ongoing. When it received no response, it sent a further email on 21 December 2024 confirming the case had been closed. During this period it also attempted to call the resident twice. While the landlord made some attempts to make contact, 2 attempts over a 4‑month period were insufficient given the issue had been ongoing for around 12 months and was subject to a complaint. The landlord did not act with sufficient urgency or consider alternative contact methods, such as a letter or home visit. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
18. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord re‑raised the pest control and repair works. These were completed between February and March 2025. In March 2025 the pest contractor confirmed there was no evidence of pest activity and that the holes had been filled. No further pest reports were made. The landlord’s actions after the stage 2 response were prompt and in line with its repair policy timescales.
19. Overall, the landlord did not manage the pest issue effectively over a prolonged period. After an initially appropriate response, its handling became inconsistent, with avoidable delays, poor coordination, and a lack of proactive communication. The landlord did not progress repairs as promised or treat the long‑running issue with sufficient urgency, even after a complaint was raised. These failures caused the resident ongoing distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty.
20. While the failings were significant, the landlord acknowledged them in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised, offered £800 compensation, and committed to completing the outstanding works. This offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for cases where failures have had a significant impact. Taking all the circumstances into account, the resolution offered by the landlord was proportionate and fair.

21. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days and to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint at both stages on time and issued its stage 1 response within the required timescale, it took 169 working days to provide its stage 2 response
22. The landlord appropriately requested an extension on 6 June 2024, within the original stage 2 timescale, which was in line with the Complaint Handling Code. However, after this request it failed to provide any further updates for around 7 months. The resident chased the landlord at least twice before referring the complaint to us. This lack of communication represented a significant delay and a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint sooner
23. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 response, apologised, and offered £250 compensation for the delay and inconvenience. This offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. As the delay did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, we consider the redress offered to be proportionate

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s records in general were good. However, it is important to keep consistent records to track repairs, recommendations, contractor actions, and dependencies between different works. Improved record keeping would support better oversight of outstanding actions, prevent jobs being closed prematurely or duplicated, and ensure commitments made during the repairs and complaint process are properly monitored and followed through.

Communication

25. Providing regular, proactive updates, especially where issues are complex or long‑running is an important factor in avoiding complaints. Communication should be timely, transparent, and use appropriate alternative methods where contact is not successful. Clear communication would help manage expectations, reduce frustration, and demonstrate ownership of issues, particularly when delays occur or complaints are under investigation.