Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202447568)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447568

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

16 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation, the subsequent repairs and damage to her sofa.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. Electrical repairs in the property.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord for a three-bedroom house where she lived with her 3 children.
  2. The landlord previously responded to a complaint about its handling of mice at the property on 20 September 2024. It said work was still outstanding to proof mouse entry points as it needed to attend with the pest contractor. It apologised that it had attended several times when the pest contractor did not. It arranged a joint visit for 7 October and said the pest contractor would attend weekly.
  3. The resident complained on 20 November 2024. She said she still had mice in her property and her kitchen was in a bad condition following work to proof it. She said separately her electrics had failed, and a landlord operative was not returning until January 2025. She also said she had damp and mould in the property and wanted to be rehoused.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 November 2024. It said it had completed some mouse proofing, and it would be ongoing. It said it had completed all work in accordance with its response times but apologised for not returning calls. It rearranged the appointment to inspect and repair the electrics for 3 December. It also said the resident had not reported any damp and mould previously and advised her on how to do this. It said she was ineligible to transfer properties in the first 24 months of her tenancy.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 December 2024 and 16 January 2025. She said the landlord had not sufficiently inspected the damp and mould in her property. She said mice were an ongoing problem and the landlord dismantled her kitchen for proofing work and not restored it correctly. She said her children were terrified of the mice and found droppings in their beds. She also stated that a pest contractor had damaged her sofa.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025. It upheld most points from its stage 1 response. However, it found that it was delayed and needed multiple visits to complete proofing works. It offered £400 compensation for this. It said the pest contractor would continue to attend, and it believed it had fully proofed the kitchen. It said it would discuss the damaged sofa with the contractor.
  7. The resident told the Ombudsman she wanted full reimbursement for her tenancy for the two years her property was “uninhabitable.” She wanted the landlord to replace her furniture and belongings and for it to reimburse the cost of moving home. She also wanted a formal apology from the landlord for its “prolonged neglect.” In September 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman she had moved to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns suggesting a rewire of the electrics was required and she also said mice had caused damage to her belongings which she wanted reimbursing for. The resident did not raise these issues as part of her complaint on 20 November or escalations on 6 December 2024 and 16 January 2025. She also wanted the cost of moving properties reimbursing, however this took place after the landlord’s final complaint response.
  2. There is no evidence of the resident complaining about these issues to the landlord. It needs to provide a final complaint response before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate. She has the opportunity to complain to the landlord about these issues. Once she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, she can contact the Ombudsman. These points will not be assessed in this report.

The resident’s reports of a pest infestation, the subsequent repairs and damage to her sofa

  1. In her initial complaint of 20 November 2024, the resident said there were mice still entering her property despite the landlord completing proofing work. She said the proofing works had left her kitchen “falling apart.” She said she wanted to move and have her moving expenses paid.
  2. In its complaint response, the landlord said it would only investigate events after 20 September 2024. This was appropriate as it had previously provided a stage 1 complaint response on the matter on 20 September. The resident had not escalated this complaint within 28 days, as the landlord’s complaint policy suggests. She had also not raised this complaint with the Ombudsman. This would later be confused in its stage 2 response, which considered events from 19 February 2024.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses confirmed that it was satisfied that the pest contractor was attending to prevent mice in the property. This reflected the pest contractor’s attendance at the property between 26 September and 26 November 2024.
  4. The landlord also said it completed proofing works in line with its target response times in its policy. This was not reflective of the landlord’s repair records, and it recognised this in its stage 2 response. Its response confirmed it was delayed in completing work to remove units or plinths in the kitchen on multiple occasions between February 2024 and January 2025 to support the pest controller’s investigations. This was accurate and in line with its repairs policy, which gives 28 working days for an appointable repair.
  5. The landlord offered £400 compensation for attending on multiple occasions and the delays in completing work requested by the pest contractor. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. In her escalation, the resident said the landlord damaged the kitchen and had not put it back together properly. Although the landlord acknowledged its delays in completing work, it did not acknowledge the reports of damage to the kitchen. There is no evidence that the landlord considered or completed an investigation into the matter. If it was unable to consider this, it should have explained why.
  7. The landlord’s complaint responses explained that it could not consider the resident transferring property. It said she was unable to do this in the first 24 months of her tenancy. It said as this would be the resident’s choice, it could not help with expenses. This was accurate and in accordance with its lettings policy. This suggests that exception examples include a priority medical need or a domestic abuse incident, neither of which was applicable. It offered alternatives to her, including its website and property swap website.
  8. The landlord said it was not aware of damage to the resident’s sofa by the pest contractor. It said it would raise this with them. This was appropriate as the landlord’s standard terms and condition of contract confirm the contractor is responsible for managing any issues where it is accused of being liable for property damage. The contractor was attempting to arrange a repair directly with the resident. It is unclear if they completed this.
  9. In summary, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it was delayed multiple times in completing work to allow the pest contractor to inspect and control mice at the property. It offered proportionate compensation for this. It did provide accurate information about moving and damage to the resident’s sofa. However, it did not appropriately inspect reports of damage to the kitchen, leaving that part of the resident’s complaint unresolved.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident said there was mould all over her property in her initial complaint of 20 November 2024. She said the landlord failed to check it properly before she moved in.
  2. In its 29 November 2024 reply, the landlord stated it treated damp and mould seriously. It said it relied on residents’ reporting damp and mould, so that it can investigate further and remedy any issue. This was in accordance with the information it gives on its website. It said it had no reports from the resident since she moved into the property. It appropriately explained how to report the issue to it and confirmed it would discuss this in an upcoming welfare check it had arranged.
  3. In her escalation, the resident stated that damp and mould was present since she moved in two years ago. She said she had not touched the damp and mould, so a landlord operative could see where it was coming from. She said they attended but failed to properly test the damp and mould, so she escalated this. She said she had to throw away several items due to mould.
  4. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply of 23 January 2025 that it would not investigate the issue for the two years the resident said damp and mould was present. This was in accordance with its complaints policy, which confirms it will investigate issues within 12 months.
  5. The landlord’s response also showed that it reacted appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 9 January 2025. It attended to treat the mould on 16 January and inspected the root cause on 22 January. It confirmed it would fit a positive input ventilation (PIV), trim doors for air circulation and install new extractor fans in both bathrooms and the kitchen. These were all reasonable and relevant steps to tackling the damp and mould issue. The work arranged was also in line with the inspection recommendations.
  6. The landlord installed the PIV on 1 April 2025. It attended to complete the other agreed work on 17 April 2025 and treat the mould. However, the resident rejected the work as she said she was moving out of the property.
  7. While the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable, it did not respond to her concerns about damage caused by damp and mould. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy, which confirms its complaint response will consider its liability for any loss or damage incurred. It could have referred to its insurer, which is detailed in its compensation and claims policy.
  8. In summary, the landlord advised that it would not investigate the two years the resident said damp and mould was present. This was in line with its policy, and due to it receiving no reports from the resident. It took appropriate steps to manage the damp and mould when the resident later reported it. However, it should have addressed her concerns about mould damage to her property. Not doing so was counter to its complaints policy.

Electrical repairs in the property

  1. In her initial complaint of 20 November 2024, the resident said she had reported problems with the electrics in the property on 17 November. She said the landlord attended the same day but arranged a follow-up repair for January 2025 during school hours. She said this was not suitable, and she had been told she could only use one large kitchen appliance at a time until that point. She also said the landlord had failed to call her back about this when she requested it.
  2. The landlord’s initial response of 29 November 2024 provided a timeline of events. This included the resident’s initial report of 17 November, and it attending the same day as an emergency, completing a temporary fix to restore the power. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, which suggests attending within 24 hours for an emergency.
  3. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations, confirming the further repair was not an emergency, which is why it initially arranged it for 9 January 2025. However, it appropriately brought this forward to 3 December 2024 when the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the appointment. This was within the 28-day timescale in its repairs policy.
  4. In summary, the landlord completed a temporary repair as an emergency and the follow-on repair to the resident’s electrics. It completed both within their respective timescales in its repairs policy. It took appropriate steps to arrange a more suitable appointment and apologised for failing to call her back.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of
    1. A pest infestation, the subsequent repairs and damage to her sofa.
    2. Damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the electrics in the property.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord must pay the resident £700 within 4 weeks of this report. This comprises:
    1. £200 for the failings found in its handling of the pest infestation and the subsequent repairs.
    2. £100 for its failure to direct the resident to an insurer for mould damage to her property.
    3. £400 it offered to the resident on 23 January 2025 if it has not already paid this.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must consider the mould damage reported by the resident through its insurer. This must include it telling the resident what information she needs to provide to support this action.
  3. Evidence of the above orders must be provided by the respective deadlines.