We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southern Housing (202442436)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442436

Southern Housing

29 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
    1. Pests.
    2. Communal ceiling repairs.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report pests in her property on 9 February 2024 and 13 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended on 21 February 2024 and found evidence of mice. They subsequently placed bait boxes and snap traps.
  3. The contractor followed this up on 6 March 2024 and found no new evidence of pests, so removed the traps and bait boxes. The contractors undertook a further inspection on 25 March 2024, but completed no further works. Following a Housing Disrepair Letter of Claim, the landlord undertook an inspection of the property on 24 May 2025. The report from this inspection states it found no signs of pests in the property, although it did note several outstanding repair works.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 August 2024 to raise a complaint. She said she had reported pests in the property on several occasions, but the landlord had failed to resolve the problem. She mentioned outstanding repairs to stop mice gaining access from a neighbouring property and the communal bin area. She also raised a concern about a communal ceiling she believed could collapse.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2024. It upheld her complaint and offered £130 compensation. This consisted of £15 for the landlord’s failure to follow its process, £15 for the resident having to chase the landlord, and £100 for her inconvenience, time and trouble experienced. The landlord said it failed to follow up on recommended works related to the pests, but that it was now in the process of managing any necessary works. It also said it had raised a job to repair the communal ceiling.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 December 2024 to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said the landlord’s contractors had come out to attempt repairs but had stopped work when they found rat droppings. She stated that the infestation had been ongoing for several years, and the landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve this. She said she wished for the landlord to move her out of the property.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 January 2025. The landlord said that since it had received a legal disrepair claim which mentioned repairs relating to pest prevention, it would not be investigating the resident’s concerns through its complaint procedure. It said that its maintenance team would coordinate with her to inspect and make good the communal ceiling. As it had failed to repair this, it said it was upholding her complaint but offered no compensation.
  8. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 14 April 2025 asking us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord was continuing to ignore her reports about the pests. She mentioned she was unable to open her balcony due to the problem, and felt the building was not safe to live in. She said she was 36 weeks pregnant and felt living in the building was increasing her anxiety levels. To resolve her complaint, the resident said she would like the landlord to move her out of the property. When submitting information to the Ombudsman, the landlord informed us that it had reached a settlement with the resident in relation to the legal disrepair claim raised by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. Where a settlement agreement is accepted by a legal representative acting on behalf of a resident as part of a disrepair claim for damages, it is fairly assumed that the resident has been given competent legal advice about the offer made, the effects of accepting the offer, and their legal rights and prospects of success if rejecting it. Where a settlement has been accepted, it is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to assess the offer made or accepted, as decisions regarding damages are best suited for court. Due to this, the Ombudsman has not considered any aspects of the resident’s complaint that deal with disrepair, even those aspects which relate to repairs necessary as part of pest control measures.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will only provide a pest management service where the pests represent a clear risk to health and safety. Its policy goes on to list the pests it believes represent this risk, including rats and mice.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that for emergency repairs, it will attend within 6 hours of a resident reporting the issue. For non-emergency repairs, the landlord does not give an exact timescale for its attendance. Its policy says that it will ‘arrange an appointment, for as soon as possible’.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy also says that it will complete any communal repairs ‘as quickly as possible’. Its policy describes communal repairs as including ‘repairs to entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes, paths, grounds, roadways, parking areas, and communal gardens’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests

  1. The terms in the landlord’s pest control policy mean that, given the nature of the resident’s reports, it would be responsible for dealing with the pests (mice and rats) that the resident was reporting in her property. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not give an exact timeframe for completing pest control works, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to complete any necessary appointments in a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to communicate openly with the resident about timescales.
  2. The resident first reported seeing mice and rats in the property on 9 February 2024, following this up with a further report on 13 February 2024. The landlord’s evidence demonstrates that it first attended on 21 February 2024, where it noted the presence of mice in the property. The pest control contractors added contact gel along the wall-floor junction, bait boxes, and snap traps throughout the property. The landlord’s actions in this appointment, and its timescale for attendance, were reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s contractor followed this up with an appointment on 6 March 2024. In this follow-up appointment, the landlord found no sign of pests and no new evidence. It therefore removed all traps and baits from the site. Considering the reports of its contractors, this was again reasonable and in line with the steps the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take.
  4. The landlord’s records from 25 March 2024 state that the resident will need to speak to the landlord regarding pest control, suggesting the problem may have required more extensive works. It’s unclear exactly what caused this inspection. However, the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response said that its contractors undertook an appointment on this date and that it failed to raise appointments following this. The landlord itself, in its complaint response, said this represented a failure to follow its correct processes at this stage. The landlord’s actions, therefore, in failing to follow this process, represented a failing from the landlord in handling the resident’s reports.
  5. The evidence available to the Ombudsman does not demonstrate any further reports from the resident to the landlord until she raised her complaint. While her legal representatives do appear to have contact with the landlord the Ombudsman has not seen any new evidence of the resident raising pest reports with the landlord until 8 August 2024.
  6. The landlord failed to arrange any new inspections by pest controllers or take any of the steps in line with its pest control policy following the resident’s complaint. Considering the content of the resident’s complaint and the fact that she said the infestation was still ongoing, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s reports. She mentioned an ongoing infestation on 8 August 2024, 15 August 2024, 6 December 2024, and 30 December 2024. The landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s reports represents a significant failure in service.
  7. The resident has also mentioned that she believed pests were coming from a neighbour’s balcony, as well as communal areas. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it engaged with these reports or undertook any action to investigate or resolve them. This failure to fully engage with all aspects of the resident’s reports, especially those about wider pest issues, again demonstrates service failure from the landlord.
  8. The landlord’s records indicate that it contacted its pest control contractors on 13 January 2025, who said they had not attended the property since 6 March 2024. Despite this, the landlord failed to arrange any new appointments for its contractors to attend. This was 5 months since the resident had raised new reports about pests in the property. The landlord’s failure to act upon these reports represents service failure.
  9. The resident told the Ombudsman on several occasions that, due to the infestation, she would like the landlord to move her out of the property. She mentioned this to the Ombudsman on at least 3 occasions between 15 August 2024 and 30 December 2024. The landlord failed to engage with the resident’s requests and has not provided her with any information on the options available to her. The landlord’s failure to engage with the resident’s request again represented a failing in handling the resident’s reports.
  10. While this investigation will not comment on matters relating to the resident’s disrepair claim, the landlord should have recognised that performing repairs alone may not be sufficient to deal with an ongoing pest infestation. The resident herself told the Ombudsman that the pest infestation remained ongoing, and other than several repairs, the landlord had taken no action to provide a permanent solution. This demonstrates that the landlord did not do enough to respond to the resident’s reports in a proportional manner.
  11. The landlord recognised in its stage 1 complaint response that there had been failures in its handling of the resident’s reports about pests. It offered the resident £130 compensation for these failings. Considering the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in the 5-month timeframe between the resident raising a complaint and the stage 2 complaint response, this is not a sufficient offer of redress.
  12. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests represents maladministration. For its failure to respond appropriately to her reports and the subsequent distress and inconvenience she experienced because of this, the landlord should pay the resident £500 in compensation. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £130. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failing from the landlord which ‘adversely affected’ the resident.
  13. The Ombudsman has also made orders below which the landlord should follow in order to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports about a communal ceiling repair

  1. The resident first informed the landlord about an issue with a ceiling in a communal area on 8 August 2024. This was related to an area outside the resident’s property, which she needed to access in order to top up her gas meter. She said the ceiling had partially collapsed with electrics hanging out. She felt that there was a potential that this could fall on her head.
  2. Given the nature of the repair, this would fall under a communal repair that the landlord’s policy states it will undertake. While the landlord’s policy does not give an exact timescale for completing this repair, the Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord attend to this in a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The landlord failed to attend to inspect or perform a repair in the timescale covered in this complaint. The resident raised this when making her original complaint, as well as when escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord’s failure to follow up on the resident’s reports represented a failing from the landlord.
  4. The landlord told the resident that it had raised a job to complete a repair as part of its stage 1, but it has provided no evidence to the Ombudsman demonstrating this. The landlord’s failure to follow up on this commitment again represented a failing to handle the resident’s report fairly.
  5. As part of its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord raised a job to repair the damaged ceiling. The landlord raised this on 14 January 2025 and completed the repair on 1 May 2025. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident reasonably updated about its progress with this time. Given the lack of updates from the landlord, the length of time between it raising the job and completing this was not reasonable and represented a failure to respond to the resident’s reports in a timely fashion.
  6. Overall, it took the landlord over 8 months from the resident putting it on notice about the need for a repair to the date it completed the necessary work. The length of time it took the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports represented maladministration.
  7. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it upheld the resident’s complaint as the repair work remained outstanding. At this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make an offer of compensation, considering the time and trouble caused to the resident by its failure to do so. While this was in a communal area, the resident contacted the landlord to report this on several occasions, with very little response or action from the landlord. This undoubtedly caused the resident distress and inconvenience and undermined the resident’s faith in the landlord.
  8. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling her reports about a communal ceiling repair. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends figures in this region where there have been failings from the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about pests.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about a communal ceiling repair.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £700 compensation consisting of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports about pests, and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports about a communal ceiling repair.
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the findings identified by this report.
    3. Arrange a new pest control inspection of the resident’s property in line with its pest control policy. Within 2 weeks of the landlord completing this it must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a written copy of this alongside an action plan for any actions recommended by this.
    4. Write to the resident to provide her with information on the options available to her if she is still seeking a move out of the property.
    5. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has carried out the orders as set out above.