Southern Housing (202401759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401759

Southern Housing

7 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of pest control issues in the property.
2. Request to be transferred to another property on medical grounds.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3-bed house with her children.
On 25 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said she had rats in her property and had experienced frequent “infestations” since 1998. She said she could hear the rats in her walls, this was preventing her sleeping and impacting her mental health. She asked the landlord to transfer her to another property on medical grounds. She then telephoned the landlord on 30 January 2024 and said she wanted to make a complaint about the rats. The landlord did not raise a stage 1 complaint at this time.
On 12 February 2024 the resident said she wanted to raise a formal complaint about the rats in her property. She said the property was “uninhabitable” due to the issue. The resident stated the rat infestation had caused a “deterioration” in her health and that she was experiencing mental health issues and skin problems. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2024. It said its pest control contractor (contractor) had attended several times and its last visit was on 24 January 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s request for a transfer. It explained it could not provide this but that she could apply for a mutual exchange.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 30 May 2024. She said she was unhappy with the time it was taking to resolve the rat issue. She said a lack of insulation in the property was allowing them to enter. The resident also stated she was experiencing skin issues due to germs spread by the rats.
On 20 June 2024 the landlord advised it would need to extend its stage 2 response timeframe. It asked the resident to provide evidence of how the issue was affecting her medically. It also said a manager from its contractor would inspect the property to confirm whether a decant was required.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2024. It said:
1. Its contractor found no evidence of rat activity inside the living spaces of the home. Nor did it identify any health and safety issues. It therefore would not offer her a decant.
2. She had requested a rent reduction. It would not do this as the contractor did not find she was unable to use any liveable area of the property.
3. It confirmed there was no cavity insulation in the property. It had investigated adding the property to the retrofit program but her property was not eligible.
4. Its housing team would contact her to discuss her moving options and her eligibility for a management move.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2025 as she continued to experience issues with rats. The case became one we could consider in April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The resident told the landlord in January 2024 that she had been experiencing issues with rats since 1998.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from January 2024.
We would usually consider the events that took place in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. However, in this case the landlord has only provided evidence from January 2024 onwards. This is explored in our record keeping section.
The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the rat infestation on her mental and physical health. While we can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, we cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice.

Record keeping.

The landlord has only provided the Ombudsman with repair records for the property from January 2024 onwards.
It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s reports of rats. We did not specify a timeframe and therefore the landlord should have provided evidence relating to such reports from the start of the tenancy.
As the landlord is aware, the Ombudsman will consider events that took place up to approximately 12 months prior to the complaint being made. That it has not therefore provided evidence for this period has hampered our investigation and was an example of poor information management.
We also note that there were insufficiencies in the evidence provided by the landlord. It has not provided completion dates for several of the visits carried out or the outcome of these visits.
The Ombudsman reasonably expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
For these reasons we find maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reports of pest control issues in the property.

The evidence provided by the landlord shows the resident reported rats in her property in January 2024. The records show the landlord’s contractor attended but it is not clear when it did so. As it is not clear when the contractor attended, we cannot determine that it did so within a reasonable period.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timeframe for completion of routine repairs. Instead it states it will complete them “as soon as possible”. While landlords are not obligated to provide a timeframe for repairs, doing so allows it to more effectively manage resident’s expectations and monitor its own performance. We recommend that the landlord consider reviewing its repairs policy and including target timeframes for routine repairs.
In March 2024 the landlord ordered a drain survey to identify possible access points for the rats. It is not clear if this survey was carried out and if so, what the results were.
On 25 April 2024 the resident said the rats were accessing the property due to “location, and structural design of the building”. She said that the property was close to trainlines and waterways and was poorly built and that this had attracted rats. She said she was regularly woken in the middle of the night by the sounds of rats in the walls and had developed an “uncomfortable” skin condition caused by the rats.
The landlord requested evidence from the resident of any health issues during its stage 2 complaint investigations. This was appropriate. We have not seen evidence that the resident provided this evidence.
Within her stage 2 escalation request the resident stated that germs and mites from the rats were causing her and her family to have skin conditions. We have seen no evidence that the landlord addressed this. It would have been appropriate for it to ask its contractor to investigate the presence of mites. That it did not was a failing.
In late June 2024 the landlord’s contractor carried out a survey of the property. Its report stated:
1. It found “no signs of rat activity” and that the resident had not seen any rats but had heard them.
2. The property’s location between railway lines and a stream provided “ideal living conditions” for rats.
3. It identified possible entry points in the fascia and under a window. It recommended that the landlord proof these to prevent entry.
4. There were issues with other properties on the road which were owned by another landlord. The bin stores were overflowing and there was evidence that rodents were using the area.
Given the contractor’s findings, the landlord should reasonably have carried out proofing work to the resident’s property. It should also have communicated with the neighbouring landlord about the issues in its properties. We have not seen evidence that it did so. If the landlord considered the actions and decided not to complete them, it should have recorded its rationalisation for this decision. That it did not was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that there was no evidence of rat activity inside the resident’s living spaces. This was correct. However, it did not outline the issues identified by the contractor. This was unreasonable. In the interests of transparency and resolving the issue the landlord should have explained the findings and provided an action plan for their resolution. That it did not was inappropriate.
The landlord explained in its response that, due to the resident’s concerns that a lack of insulation was allowing rats access to the property, it had considered adding the property to its retrofit program. It said this was not possible as the program was government funded for properties with an EPC of band D or below. Her property was band C and therefore ineligible. This explanation was reasonable.
The resident states that she continues to experience issues with rats in her property. The landlord’s records also indicate the issue is ongoing.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its response to the resident’s reports of pest control issues in the property. However, this investigation has identified that the landlord failed to:
1. Evidence when pest control and CCTV surveys were completed.
2. Investigate the presence of mites.
3. Explain the contractor’s findings in its final complaint response.
4. Explain why it did not act on the contractor’s recommendations in relation to proofing and nearby properties.
The landlord offered the resident no compensation for its handling of her pest control concerns. We do not consider that this was reasonable. We consider that it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Request to be transferred to another property on medical grounds.

The resident asked the landlord in January 2024 to move her to another property due to the impact of the rats on her health. The landlord advised her that it did not hold a transfer list and that she needed to apply for a move through the local authority. The resident responded and explained that the local authority had told her to contact her landlord.
It is not uncommon for landlord’s not to hold their own housing waiting lists. Many instead allocate their available properties via the local authority waiting list and have agreements with the local authority to this effect. It therefore was reasonable that the landlord explained this to the resident.
While it was correct in signposting her to the local authority to apply to its housing register, it could also reasonably have explained that she could consider a mutual exchange. This was a missed opportunity.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it could not “directly facilitate” a transfer. It did not however explain why.
The landlord’s management move protocol states that it may offer a management move to one of its homes in “limited circumstances”. The protocol outlines several conditions under which it may offer such a move, including “medical needs…that make the home inaccessible and unusable”.
It would have been reasonable of the landlord to explain to the resident in its complaint response that it could not provide a management move because she did not meet the criteria. That it did not was unreasonable and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.
We acknowledge that the resident’s circumstances did not appear to meet the criteria outlined in the landlord’s policy for a management move. We have not seen evidence that the property was inaccessible or unusable due to the resident’s medical needs.
We also note that the resident has reported mental ill-health and skin issues caused by the rats. The landlord requested evidence of this however we have not seen that the resident provided this to the landlord at that time.
However, the landlord’s management move protocol states that when a resident requests a management move it will complete a ‘management move eligibility form’. It states this allows it to assess whether they meet the criteria for a management move. It also states that when a resident does not meet the criteria, it will explain their moving options to them.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord completed an eligibility form in this case. Therefore it cannot demonstrate the reasoning behind its decision. This was inappropriate.
We do not however consider that the outcome would have been different had the landlord completed the form. The resident’s circumstances did not meet the criteria outlined in the landlord’s policy so its decision would likely have remained the same. Its failure to complete the form was however a failure to adhere to policy which could cause damage to the resident’s trust in the landlord.
Overall, the landlord’s decision that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move was not unreasonable. However, it failed to follow its own protocol as it did not complete the correct paperwork. We therefore find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred on medical grounds. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for this and to review its management move procedure.

Complaint handling.

The landlord failed to handle the resident’s contacts on 25 January 2024 and 30 January 2024 as a formal stage 1 complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation”. The landlord should therefore have dealt with the resident’s communication as a complaint. That it failed to do so was unreasonable and unnecessarily delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
Once it had logged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it responded within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its own policy.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 response failed to satisfactorily address all the resident’s concerns. It did not adequately respond to her concerns about what action it was taking to address the rat issue or her request for a management move. This was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the appropriate timeframes outlined in the Code and its policy. It then contacted the resident to explain that it needed longer to provide its response to allow her time to provide evidence of her medical conditions and for it to carry out a further inspection of the property. This was reasonable.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on the date it had agreed in its extension request. However, as outlined earlier, it failed to outline the issues identified by its contractor and how it intended to address them. This lacked transparency and further damaged the landlord resident relationship.
Overall, the landlord delayed in logging the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It also failed to satisfactorily address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response. The landlord also failed to be transparent about the findings of its contractor in its stage 2 complaint response. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and order it to pay £150 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pest control issues in the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be transferred to another property on medical grounds.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £650 which comprises:
  1. £500 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of pest control issues in the property.
  2. £150 for time and trouble due to its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Review its handling of the resident’s pest control concerns. It should provide the resident with an action plan of how it intends to address the issue. This should include:
  1. What action it intends to take in relation to the contractor’s comments regarding proofing and issues with the nearby estate.
  2. Whether it will carry out additional investigations to determine whether there is an issue with mites or similar in the property.
  3. Timescales for reviewing its actions.
2. Review its administrative practices in relation to management moves. It must ensure the correct forms are completed so that outcomes are properly recorded.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider reviewing its repairs policy to include target timeframes for routine repairs.