Walsall Housing Group Limited (202530694)

Decision
Case ID	202530694
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Walsall Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 April 2026

Background

The resident lives with her 3 children, some of whom are neurodivergent and/or have physical health conditions. She has mental health conditions. The landlord has not recorded these vulnerabilities.
She reported leaks, that she said led to damp and a pest infestation and complained about the landlord’s response. She asked that her housing officer (HO) did not contact her or attend her property. At times, a representative has contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. For clarity, we refer to both as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks in her property.
2. Reports of a pest infestation in her property.
3. Reports of damp and mould in her property.
4. Request for her HO not to contact her.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her HO not to contact her.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the property

The landlord did not arrange for a surveyor to inspect for leaks despite saying it could do this. It did not acknowledge this failure in its communication with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an infestation in her property

The landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities in the household. It did not contact her to rearrange a missed appointment in line with its repairs policy. It delayed in referring the resident’s reports of cockroaches to its pest contractor. In addition, it delayed in moving her to temporary accommodation to allow its contractor to complete treatment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

The landlord acknowledged its failure when the resident reported mould in February 2025. It offered an appropriate amount of compensation for this. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to assess the hazard or offer advice when she reported damp in October 2025.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her HO not to contact her

The landlord agreed for the HO not to attend an appointment following the resident’s complaint. However, it failed to communicate with the resident and manage her expectations at a later appointment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint which affected the overall response time at stage 1. It failed to acknowledge this in its complaint responses.

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: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 19 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £787.50 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of an infestation in her property, including the £187.50 offered in its stage 2 response £187.50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property as offered in its stage 2 response £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for her HO not to contact her £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint The landlord may deduct the £375 previously offered from the total amount if it can evidence this has been paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 May 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the resident has told us the infestation is ongoing. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection to ascertain the level of the infestation and whether further treatment is required. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. It must provide an inspection report, with any planned works including timescales if required, to us and the resident by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 19 May 2026
4	Specific Order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities in her household. It should ensure it updates its records to reflect these. It must provide evidence of the updated records to us and the resident by the due date.	No later than 19 May 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The repairs and maintenance guide for residents states the landlord does not deal with pests, and the local council usually provides these services. We recommend the landlord reviews this to ensure the information provided to residents is correct.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 September 2025	The resident complained about a cockroach and silverfish infestation in her property. She said this was due to an unresolved leak. She said the infestation had spread to the beds, forcing her and her children to sleep on a single sofa. She also said it had contaminated her food, and she would have to move out. She said her HO had told her the landlord would not treat this.
Between 15 October and 3 November 2025	The resident continued to complain about the infestation and said it remained throughout the property despite a pest contractor attending. She said the landlord needed to remove the kitchen units to access the nests as poison was ineffective. She reported damp in the property and said there was no bathroom window or ventilation system. She asked to be put in temporary accommodation while the landlord addressed these issues. She also asked that her HO did not contact her or attend her property.
5 November 2025	In its stage 1 response the landlord did not uphold the complaints about the HO’s conduct or the pest infestation, saying it acted promptly and engaged pest control. It said it attended several leaks on the day they were reported on 11 February 2025. It said it repaired a shower leak reported on 15 September 2025 on 17 September 2025. It accepted it should have instructed a surveyor when the resident reported damp and mould in February 2025. It confirmed it had booked a survey for 19 November 2025 and offered £75 compensation for this failing.
6 November 2025	The resident escalated her complaint because she said the landlord had not completed repairs and the HO was still attending her property.
9 December 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: its contractor assessed the cockroach infestation as low and completed gel treatment and trapping the appointment on 3 November 2025 did not go ahead because the resident became upset and later contact attempts were unsuccessful there was no delay in treatment, but it accepted it was ineffective its contractor attended several times between February and September 2025 and confirmed there were no leaks present following repairs on each visit inspections in November 2025 found no active leaks or damp and mould within the property, but did confirm cockroach and silverfish activity which required professional treatment it recommended the property should be unoccupied during treatment to allow full coverage it advised removal and of kitchen units to eliminate suspected nesting areas, a deep clean and sealing of entry points to prevent reoccurrence it partially upheld the complaint and increased its compensation offer to £375
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the infestation was ongoing. She wanted the landlord to resolve the infestation and pay additional compensation.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident reported leaks to the landlord from 2020. Our investigation will only consider events from September 2024 onwards, which is 12 months before the resident raised her complaint. This is so we can conduct a thorough and effective investigation. We may refer to events before this for context only.
The resident raised concerns about the temporary accommodation the landlord placed her in. However, this was after the landlord had sent its stage 2 response. Additionally, within a few months of the landlord’s stage 2 response further leaks were identified in the resident’s property. We have not addressed these issues as they have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process. Any new issues that have not been subject to a complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new complaint if needed.
The resident requested compensation for damage to belongings, reimbursement for takeaways she had to buy and for the landlord to take responsibility for the cost of a skip. While we can consider the impact the issues reported have had on her and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability in the same way as a court or insurer may. The resident may wish to pursue an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurance team should she feel the landlord is liable for the damage to her belongings.

What we did investigate

On 11 February 2025 the landlord repaired a leak from pipework which went through the bedroom wall. It also repaired a leak from the bath and from the downstairs toilet. This was the same day the resident reported these issues. This aligned with its repair policy to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. Its records show it completed repairs to a leak from the boiler on 11 May 2025. It is unclear whether this was a typing error as its notes suggest this may have been completed in February and not May.
The resident reported a shower leak on 15 September 2025. The landlord raised an urgent repair as the leak was containable. On 25 September 2025 the resident said its contractor repaired this leak the previous day which conflicted with the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord’s records do not confirm when it completed the repair. She said the leaks may not have stopped. Although the landlord said it could arrange for a surveyor to check this, it did not do so at the time.
The resident said there was an ongoing issue with the landlord not looking to find a leak on 27 September 2025. The landlord told her to call back to check outstanding jobs. On 29 September 2025 she said there had been a leak for 2 years. The landlord said she should follow this up with repairs and if there was a structural issue then it could request a surveyor. Inspections on 19 and 21 November 2025 found no active leaks. However, given the history of leaks, the landlord could have been more proactive in arranging an inspection.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failings regarding reported leaks in its complaint responses. The resident raised concerns about an undetected leak several times, and the landlord was aware of historic leaks dating back to 2020. It should therefore have treated her reports with greater urgency. In line with our compensation guidance for unacknowledged service failures, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in her property
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported a pest issue with “white bugs” on 11 February 2025. The landlord attended on 14 February 2025 but was unable to access the property. It did not contact the resident to rearrange this appointment. This did not align with its repairs policy to attempt to contact residents in cases of no access to encourage them to reraise the repair. This was a missed opportunity to stop the infestation from escalating.
Between 15 and 29 September 2025 the resident reported a pest infestation on 4 occasions, stating there were silverfish and cockroaches throughout the property. She said the infestation was caused by leaks and asked the landlord’s pest contractor to attend as it was not her fault. The landlord initially said it did not treat silverfish. However, the resident had also reported cockroaches, which it did treat. The landlord agreed to arrange an inspection and treatment on 29 September 2025 but did not raise this job to its contractor until 2 October 2025. This delay from the initial report on 15 September 2025 was unreasonable.
The pest contractor attended on 10 and 21 October 2025. It assessed the infestation level as “low” and started treatment after the resident provided evidence of cockroaches. On the second visit it found “light amounts” of cockroaches in the kitchen but no dead ones. On 15 and 16 October 2025the resident said the infestation had worsened and disputed the contractor’s assessment. She asked to be moved to temporary accommodation while it completed treatment as she felt the property was uninhabitable. She said the contractor had advised this. She also requested removal of the kitchen units to expose the nests as the treatment had been ineffective.
The landlord did not recommend either of these until after its inspection of 19 and 21 November 2025. During which it observed dead cockroaches. The resident did not move to temporary accommodation to allow treatment until after the landlord had provided its stage 2 response. The landlord’s records indicate it had difficulty contacting the resident to rearrange the cancelled appointment from 3 November 2025. Even so, this delay was unreasonable. The resident informed it of the vulnerabilities in her household. However, the landlord did not record this on its system, to deliver an appropriate service aligned to the needs of the household. This did not align with its vulnerability policy.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the treatment had been ineffective. We have considered the landlord attributed half of the compensation it offered to this. The landlord completed further pest control treatments in the resident’s property. It also replaced the kitchen due to her concerns about its cleanliness following the infestation. It has made some attempts to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
The landlord’s offer of £187.50 compensation did not fully reflect the impact on the resident. Our compensation guidance allows payments where failures adversely affect residents. She told the landlord the infestation caused distress, disturbed her and her children’s sleep, affected clothing and impacted her work. She said her children’s school had raised welfare concerns. The resident told us the infestation continues although it has improved. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay additional compensation in line with our finding of maladministration. We have also ordered it to inspect the property and provide an action plan.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property
Finding	Service failure

The resident called the landlord on 16 December 2024. It told her to call customer services to arrange a damp inspection. There is no evidence that either the resident or the landlord followed this up. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so given it was aware of the reported damp.
The resident contacted the landlord about mould on 11 February 2025 following a leak. It advised her to let the plaster dry and then paint the affected area. It did not contact the resident following this. This did not align with its damp and mould policy to contact a resident 28 days after it had issued guidance to determine whether a home visit was required.
The resident reported damp at the property on 16 October 2025. She said it lacked a bathroom window or ventilation, leaving no way of removing moisture. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the severity at this point. It did not offer any advice to mitigate the damp. This did not align with its damp and mould policy or its resident leaflet on damp and mould.
On 21 October 2025 the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection with an instruction to contact the resident within 5 working days. Its damp and mould policy states that it would do this where it identified a hazard as severe or advice to reduce damp and mould had been unsuccessful. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 October 2025 and arranged an inspection. The inspection completed on 19 and 21 November 2025 did not find any damp issues in the property.
In its complaint responses the landlord accepted it should have followed up after the resident reported mould in February 2025. We have concluded it attributed half of the stage 2 compensation to this. However, it did not acknowledge its failings when the resident reported damp in October 2025. As the compensation offered aligns with our guidance where there was a minor service failure, we have not ordered any additional compensation. However, we have ordered the landlord to apologise for the additional failures identified in this report.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her HO not to contact her
Finding	Service failure

On 25 September 2025 the resident asked her HO to leave during a home visit. On 16 October 2025 she said the HO continued to contact her and visit her property despite assurances from their manager they would not do so. On 20 October 2025 the landlord agreed the HO would not attend the next appointment with its pest contractor on 21 October 2025. It said it could not change the HO because the resident did not want to engage with them. The landlord reasonably explained its position on the issue.
However, the HO attended with the pest contractor on 3 November 2025. This upset the resident and led to the contractor cancelling the appointment. The landlord investigated the contact the HO had with the resident including this incident. It found the HO acted appropriately, although the resident had been unhappy with some of the conversations. However, the landlord had previously agreed the HO would not attend an appointment. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have managed the resident’s expectations about this and given notice of any changes to the appointment. This may have avoided the cancellation of the appointment.
This delayed resolution of the issues in the resident’s property. The resident told the landlord she felt intimidated by the HO. Our compensation guidance allows for payments where there had been a minor failure by the landlord in the service provided. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with this and apologise.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy that is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) introduced in April 2024. The resident initially complained on 29 September 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 22 October 2025. This did not align with its complaint policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It provided the stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. This aligned with its complaint policy. However, the overall response time was delayed because of the delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 12 November 2025. This aligned with the 5 working day timescale outlined in its complaint policy. It provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the resident’s complaint as required by its complaint policy. However, it failed to identify the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Our compensation guidance allows for payments of up to £50 where there was a delay of several days. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation in line with this.

Learning

The landlord acknowledged some failings in its complaint responses. However, it did not provide information on any learning identified. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address internally in these responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it completed some repairs in the resident’s property. The date of some of the contact from the resident was also unclear. At times this made it difficult to assess its actions. Additionally, the exact date the resident moved to temporary accommodation is unclear.

Communication

On occasion the landlord failed to follow up with the resident when she attempted to report issues. This could have prevented issues escalating.