Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited — case 202207558

Decision Case ID 202207558 Decision type Investigation Landlord Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 20 January 2026 Background The resident has lived at the landlord’s property for over 15 years. She has been reporting issues with mice for a number of years. In November 2023, following another report, the landlord arranged for pest control to visit and assess the situation. They recommended repairs and administered treatment but the resident did not consider the problem had been resolved and she complained.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling: Of a pest infestation at the property. The complaint. Our decisions (determinations) We have found: The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the pest infestation. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Pest infestation The landlord accepted it initially delayed to act in line with its policy.

However, it has demonstrated that it then took appropriate steps to respond to further reports. The Complaint The landlord delayed in responding at stage 2 of its complaints 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise its failure to respond within its complaint timeframes. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment made direct to the resident by the due date. No later than 17 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to pay the resident £150 it offered in its complaint process if it hasn’t already done so. This payment recognised genuine elements of service failure and we made the reasonable redress finding on that basis. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 12 January 2024 The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said pest control had attended about 5 times a year for 16 years to address mice problems but the issue remained.

She said it was affecting her mental and physical health. She asked that the landlord eradicate the problem or move her. 19 February 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in responding. It set out the steps it had taken to deal with the problem since the last report. It accepted it had delayed in arranging proofing works at the property since November 2023 and had arranged a visit for 21 February 2024. It offered £100 to acknowledge the delay.

28 May 2024 The resident escalated her complaint, saying that the offer of £100 was not enough as it did not cover the cost of cleaning products. She said she was unable to use her cooker as she had seen rodents entering it. She also said personal items had been damaged and that contractors had not attended on 21 February 2024 as arranged. In a later call on 28 June 2024, the resident said she wanted the compensation to be increased as the problem had been ongoing for 16 years.

29 July 2024 The landlord explained that it did not investigate complaints that went back past 12 months. It noted her claim for personal belongings and offered a further £50 as a gesture of goodwill. It said contractors visiting on 4 July 2024 had seen no evidence of mice entering the cooker. It set out the work it had done to address the issue and said that a visit on 18 July 2024 showed that there were no signs of fresh activity. 29/7/2024 The resident thanked the landlord and said she accepted its offer of resolution.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident took her case to the Ombudsman because she said the problem returned. 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 pest infestation Finding Reasonable redress What we did not investigate The resident has said this situation has impacted her mental health.

This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must be decided by courts which can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused her. Within her complaint, the resident has said that the property has been affected by pest infestations for over 16 years. As matters become historic, it becomes harder for this service to fairly investigate issues due to reasons such as the passage of time and staff turnover.

This investigation will therefore concentrate on events which took place in the lead up to a complaint the resident made in January 2024. The resident has also said that since the final response was issued in July 2024, she has experienced further problems from pest infestations. This is understandably distressing for the resident in the circumstances. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process.

This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint in January 2024 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 29 July 2024. The resident has the right to make a new complaint to the landlord if she is unhappy with its handling of the reoccurrence. She can then return to us if she remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s responses. What we did investigate When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, offer to complete the works and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that it had not acted in line with its pest control policy, delaying proofing work that it had been aware was required between November 2023 and February 2024. It said it would complete the necessary works to proof the property and offered £100 to acknowledge the delays.

Its offer was in line with its compensation policy. The offer was increased to £150 at stage 2 with a further gesture of goodwill. It explained it did not provide the full amount claimed of £90 as it could not be sure any damage to personal belongings had occurred during the relevant period of delay, which was a reasonable response. The landlord also arranged for proofing works to be done and specified to contractors that these had to be done “quite quickly”. Between November 2023 and July 2024, it made at least 10 visits to lay treatment or complete proofing works.

This shows, in line with its policy, it was responsive and proactive in taking steps to ensure its estates and properties were kept free of pests. Along with the remedies it offered for its initial delay, its actions were proportionate and appropriate to resolve the complaint. Complaint Complaint handling Finding Service failure The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process that is line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days.

It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. Its response at stage 1 was delayed by 16 working days. However, it apologised for this delay. Also, during this period, it took steps to respond to the issue, meaning that its delayed response did not cause significant adversity. At stage 2, the landlord’s response was 24 working days late. While it had, again, been visiting the property to address the issue, it failed to either acknowledge or apologise its delayed complaint response, which is a failure in communication and a service failure.

Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The records indicate that the landlord was not aware that its contractors had been unable to undertake some of the works, such as the draft excluders, when the resident contacted it in May 2025. While it responded to this report quickly, it would have been helpful if it had been alerted to this at an earlier stage. As set out in our Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report, good record-keeping from staff and contractors can help landlords identify missed opportunities and indicate where there have been failings.