Sanctuary Housing Association (202503353)

Background

1. The resident lives in a semi-detached house with her partner and 2 adult children. She complained that there were rodents in her home, which were impacting the health of the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of pests.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
   2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Pests

4. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible to remove any pest infestation. However, the landlord raised jobs for pest control, which visited on numerous occasions. When pest control recommended checking the drains to ensure there was no fault with the fabric of the home through which pests could access the property, there was a delay in the landlord arranging this. The landlord also failed to communicate effectively with the resident, which prompted her to pursue updates. However, it appropriately offered compensation in recognition of the impact caused by its service failures.

Complaint handling

5. The resident experienced a delay of 5 working days in the landlord acknowledging her complaint at stage 2. However, the landlord then issued a stage 2 response 6 working days later, which was within its response timeframe of 20 working days and meant its delayed acknowledgement did not unduly affect the resident.

Putting things right

Recommendations

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

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 have not investigated

6. We have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when the landlord raised a pest control job on 20 June 2024. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point, and subsequently up to its post stage 2 response on 7 May 2025. We understand that the resident pursued further pest control issues following this, which she raised as a separate complaint with the landlord.
7. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. We have considered the landlord’s compensation offers within our general assessment of its handling of her reports of pests. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have investigated

8. On 20 June 2024, the resident reported that there were rodents in the cavities in her home. The landlord raised a job for pest control, who attended 13 times between 24 June 2024 and 31 December 2024. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible to remove any infestation of pests. Therefore, the landlord was under no obligation to raise a job for pest control.
9. The landlord said it attended the resident’s drain on 30 December 2024 with no additional works required. It has not provided any details regarding this visit, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
10. On 6 January 2025, pest control recommended that the landlord check a neighbouring property and drains to ensure there were no breaks in the pipes that would allow rodents to access the resident’s home. The landlord’s pests and infestations policy says it will tackle infestations where pests get in through a fault in the fabric of the building. However, it did not arrange works in relation to the neighbouring property until after it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2025. This was not appropriate, as the landlord needs to ensure it raises repair requests at the earliest opportunity to ensure that it then completes repairs within its published timescales.
11. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, which prompted her to pursue updates. It also identified that it had delayed arranging follow-on works to address the pest infestation. The landlord appropriately awarded compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. This has led to a finding of reasonable redress.

12. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
13. The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 December 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days, which it did. Therefore, it complied with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy.
14. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 February 2025. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 February 2025, which was 5 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. However, it then issued a stage 2 response 6 working days later. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint sooner did not unduly impact the resident. This has led to a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

15. It was unclear why there was a delay in the landlord taking any action following recommendations from pest control. The landlord has told us that its works coordination function has since moved to a regional structure to enable improved oversight, clearer accountability and better coordination of multi-disciplinary actions in cases of this nature.

Communication

16. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case, the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident regarding the pest control issue. The landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.