Gentoo Group Limited — case 202536910

Decision Case ID 202536910 Decision type Investigation Landlord Gentoo Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 12 May 2026 Background The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats at the property. While the resident has confirmed there have been no recent sightings, he remains concerned that the underlying issue has not been fully resolved. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property.

Our decision (determination) There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the property. Reasons The landlord’s website says responsibility for pest control rests with the local council, while responsibility for completing any associated repair works lies with the landlord. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, pest control issues are not treated as emergency repairs. The policy states that urgent repairs are attended to within 7 calendar days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It explained that it does not directly employ a pest control contractor and that responsibility for rodent treatment rests with the local council. The landlord confirmed that the council had previously inspected the property and recommended remedial works, which were raised and completed by the landlord in February 2024 within the expected timescales. The landlord advised the resident that, although he felt earlier pest control treatment was ineffective, any further reports should still be made to the council as it remains their responsibility for managing rodent infestations.

This advice was consistent with the landlord’s website guidance. At stage 2, the landlord again recognised the distress caused to the resident. It confirmed that following the council’s inspection in February 2024, several recommended proofing works were completed between February and March 2024, in line with its repairs policy timescales for urgent and routine repairs. The landlord acknowledged that one item of work was completed outside the agreed timeframe and offered an apology for this delay.

The landlord also noted that the council had confirmed it had received no further reports of vermin from the resident since May 2024. It reiterated that the resident was responsible for reporting pests issues via the council and that further action by the landlord would normally require evidence or confirmation of an ongoing issue. Nevertheless, as a goodwill measure to move the situation forward, the landlord arranged for an external private pest control survey following the stage 2 response.

This was resolution focused. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord acted in line with its policies. Pest control was appropriately directed through the local council, while the landlord fulfilled its responsibility to complete recommended proofing works. Repairs were largely completed within policy timescales, with the landlord acknowledging and apologising for one delay. The decision to commission a private pest control survey, despite no recent reports, demonstrates good practice and a proportionate response to the resident’s ongoing concerns, even though no financial redress was offered for the single failure of service.