Sovereign Network Group (202410370)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202410370 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Sovereign Network Group |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Shorthold Tenancy |
|
Date |
26 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a block of flats with her young daughter. She complained to the landlord about the length of time it took to address a pest infestation in her property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Pest control in the resident’s property.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest control in the resident’s property.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Reasons
What we have not looked at
- The resident told us that she has a phobia of mice and is pregnant. She said the situation has caused her stress and significantly impacted her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we have looked at
Pest control in the resident’s property.
- The landlord’s pest policy states that it is only responsible for pests within the resident’s property if there is an infestation in several connected properties. It does not provide a timescale for the removal of pests. However, the landlord’s website explains treatment may take a number of months. Pests and infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System Regulations 2005 (HHSRS). In line with the HHSRS the landlord has an obligation to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
- The resident reported mice in her property from January 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended and found no evidence of mice activity but noted that communal bin lids were often left open. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord informed the resident of this finding which would have been appropriate and managed her expectations. In addition, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to all residents in the block to keep bin lids closed to help prevent pests. The landlord missed an opportunity to communicate its findings to all the residents and work towards a solution to address the pest infestation in the building.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 January 2024. It clarified that its contractors had found no signs of mice but acknowledged that the resident continued to report sightings in her property. It explained that it had asked the pest control contractor to arrange another appointment and assured her that it would monitor the situation. This demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concerns about pests in her property seriously.
- The landlord’s specialist contractors attended the resident’s property on 20 February 2024 and found that bait had been taken. They replenished the bait and confirmed proofing work was required behind the boiler and in the bathroom. They returned the following week to complete the repairs and laid more bait to monitor the consumption. This was an appropriate response, and demonstrated that the landlord had followed up on its assurance that it would monitor the situation for the resident.
- The resident expressed her concern that the mouse infestation was affecting multiple properties in the block and felt that pest control in her property alone would not be enough. Where there are multiple reports of pests in the locality, best practice would be a thorough investigation of the whole area as a precaution to ensure there is no pattern. In this case, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 14 March 2024 confirmed that the pest control contractor carried out routine visits to the wider block every 8 weeks and explained that no mice were found during its visit on 5 March 2024 and after proofing work was completed the week before. The landlord was entitled to rely on the views of the specialist contractor but agreed to monitor the situation for the resident which was an appropriate response. This was in line with its obligations under the HHSRS to carry out additional monitoring of pests in the resident’s property.
- Evidence shows that after the landlord’s final response, its contractor completed further proofing works in August and October 2024. This was in line with the information set out on the landlord’s website. However, the resident reported further signs of mice in her property. The landlord instructed a new contractor to investigate pests in the resident’s property. This was reasonable as the visits and works completed by the previous contractors had not resolved the issue.
- While the landlord attended the resident’s property on several occasions there is no evidence that it liaised with its environmental health colleagues for advice regarding the reoccurring pests or to seek an independent assessment. Local authority environmental health teams can assist if it is thought there are environmental factors contributing to the pests which are outside of the landlord’s control.
- Where the sightings of mice persisted over an extended period of time, the landlord did not make it clear to the resident what its long term plan was to eradicate the pest infestation, which caused additional worry and frustration. The resident has advised us the issue with pests remains to date. An order has been made for the landlord to complete an inspection and communicate the outcome with the resident.
- Overall we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest control in the resident’s property. The landlord’s contractor made several attempts to deal with the infestation and attended the block for its routine 8 weekly visits. It laid bait regularly and completed proofing works on 3 occasions between February and October 2024. However, the landlord could have done more to consult with its local authority environmental health team where the issue was recurring, and better communicated with all the residents in the block about the bin lids.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by not resolving the issue over a prolonged period of time. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure.
The associated complaint
- The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
- The resident raised her complaint on 8 January 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 January 2024. This means that 17 working days elapsed between complaint and stage 1 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy, and it did not apologise for the delay. This delay and lack of acknowledgement likely contributed to the resident’s frustration.
- The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 February 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024. This means that 26 working days elapsed between escalation and stage 2 response. While the delay was minimal, the response time is not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay which was unreasonable.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Both responses were delayed and the landlord did not acknowledge, apologise, or learn from its previous failings. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delay in responding to her complaint at both stages of the complaint process.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 27 April 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows:
|
27 April 2026 |
|
|
Inspection order Arrange to survey the property using a specialist pest contractor, and if required produce a schedule of works to repair the entry points where pests are gaining access to the property. The landlord should consider liaising with partners within its local authority environmental health service to establish a long term resolution. The outcome should be shared with us and the resident. |
27 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend that the landlord reviews our Centre for Learning for landlords. This has a wealth of e-learning and webinars on a wide range of topics including guidance on pests and learning from complaints. The Centre for Learning can be found on our website at Centre for Learning | Housing Ombudsman Service |