The Extracare Charitable Trust (202323989)

Background

1. The resident moved to the property in a retirement village in October 2022. She has had issues with pigeon droppings from the date her lease began. The resident said she has not had use of her patio since she moved in.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to pest control.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to pest control.
5. There was service failure in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to pest control

6. The landlord took reasonable initial steps (spikes, tape, netting, hawk kite) and arranged interim cleaning. However, it did not evidence that it reviewed whether its actions were effective before stopping cleaning, or that it monitored and maintained deterrents to ensure they remained effective.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint

7. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s compensation request. The landlord sent its stage 1 response late even after applying an extension.

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.

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 looked at

8. We usually review events only up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. In this case the issue continued, and the landlord was still taking steps to resolve it. It was reasonable to consider events up to August 2024, when the resident brought the complaint to us. The resident told us she now has concerns about rats and her request for an outside tap. She can raise these issues directly with the landlord. As they have not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure, we have not investigated them further.

What we have looked at

9. The resident reported pigeon fouling on her patio shortly after moving in October 2022. She said the patio was a key reason for buying the property, as she has dogs, but she was unable to use it. In January 2023 the landlord installed spikes and spike tape and arranged fortnightly patio cleaning as a temporary mitigation. These were reasonable initial steps and were broadly in line with the Pest Control Policy, which requires the landlord to take reasonable measures to deter pests using approved deterrents.
10. On 17 February 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint because the works completed so far had not resolved the fouling. She also asked the landlord to consider compensation, as she had been unable to use the patio since moving in. The landlord said it would consider this request in its stage 1 response. This was an appropriate action and aligned with its Complaints Policy, which requires it to consider remedies and explain any steps it will take. It did not do this, and this has been assessed later in the report under complaint handling.
11. In March 2023 the landlord told the resident it was continuing to address the problem. It said it would install further spiking and netting and close gaps in the existing spikes. These were reasonable next steps at the time. The landlord was responding to the resident’s reports and using recognised deterrent measures under its Pest Control Policy.
12. In June 2023 the resident said the fouling had not improved. The landlord said it would install additional spikes and that the fortnightly cleaning would stop after the next clean, as it believed the works had improved the situation. The resident said nothing had improved and she still could not use the patio. The landlord apologised and said it had completed the works it could. Given the disagreement about whether the measures were effective, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to check the condition of the deterrents before withdrawing the temporary cleaning.
13. Through 2023–2024, the landlord continued to take further deterrent measures. It met with contractors, installed additional netting, and later deployed a hawk kite. These steps were consistent with the Pest Control Policy, which allows the use of spiking, netting and visual devices. Despite these steps, the resident continued to report fouling, raising questions about the effectiveness and maintenance of the measures.
14. In January 2024 the stage 2 response identified outstanding issues, including missing spikes at height, an access point that needed to be enclosed, high‑level staining that required cleaning, and the plan to install a hawk kite. The landlord also noted the limits of its ability to prevent wild birds. However, the evidence shows that fouling continued after this date. Later reports highlighted more missing spikes and problems with the kite. The landlord has not shown that it reviewed whether earlier measures were effective before concluding there was no service failure.
15. The resident asked the landlord to consider using a live hawk to deter the pigeons. There is no evidence showing that the landlord responded. A landlord is not required to provide every method a resident suggests, and a live hawk is outside the usual deterrents described in its Pest Control Policy. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the request and explain whether it could consider it.
16. Despite the measures taken, the resident continued to report significant fouling throughout 2023 and 2024. She reported missing or fallen spikes and hawk kites that were damaged or ineffective. The landlord has not provided inspection records, maintenance logs, or evidence that it enclosed the access point identified at stage 2. Without this information, we cannot confirm that the landlord monitored or maintained the deterrents to a reasonable standard.
17. The landlord’s fortnightly cleaning from January 2023 was outside its ad‑hoc cleaning duty and was a reasonable interim step. It later said the cleaning would stop once the works were complete. However, fouling continued even after it regarded some works as complete, and the patio remained unusable.
18. The landlord also said it would provide a method statement or leaflet explaining how to clean the droppings safely. The resident chased this in September–October 2023, but we have not seen evidence that this information was issued. Given that the underlying problem had not been resolved, withdrawing the cleaning without providing clear, written safety guidance was not reasonable.
19. The landlord took several steps that were consistent with its Pest Control Policy. It escalated its approach over time and sought advice from contractors. It could only take reasonable actions to deter wild birds.
20. However, the landlord did not clearly explain to the resident where its responsibilities ended, particularly regarding cleaning the patio. It was also unclear in its communication about why the cleaning would stop while the fouling continued. This affected the resident’s understanding of what support she could expect. We have made orders for compensation based on our remedies guidance and the landlords Compensation Policy.
21. The landlord told us on 24 February 2026 that it now has a Bird Management Strategy, which sits alongside its Pest Control Policy, to ensure it gives appropriate focus to the issues with pigeons. We have not ordered the landlord to complete an inspection because it has set out a clear plan of works. However, we have ordered the landlord to meet the resident to explain its strategy.

22. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It says stage 1 complaints should receive a formal response within 10 working days. stage 2 complaints are sent within 20 working days. It may extend these timescales if the complaint is complex. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which requires a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and allows extensions where the landlord explains the reasons and sets a clear new date.
23. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 17 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 21 February 2023 and extended the response deadline to 24 March 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 26 April 2023 which was late even with the extension. The resident chased for a response and continued to report concerns. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or offer any redress.
24. At stage 1, the resident asked the landlord to consider compensation for the loss of use of the patio. The landlord said it would address this in its complaint response, but we have not seen evidence that it considered compensation at either stage. This meant the resident’s request was not assessed in line with the landlord’s Complaints Policy.
25. The resident escalated to stage 2 on 9 January 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within the required 20 working days.

Learning

26. The landlord should ensure it has a clear process for reviewing whether deterrent measures are working and for explaining any limits to what further steps it can take.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should improve record‑keeping so that inspections, maintenance, and key decisions are documented and available if needed for review.

Communication

28. The landlord should provide clear explanations about its responsibilities, updates on planned works, and any changes to interim measures so residents understand what to expect.