Sanctuary Housing Association — case 202503353

Decision Case ID 202503353 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sanctuary Housing Association Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 19 March 2026 Background The resident lives in a semi-detached house with her partner and 2 adult children. She complained that there were rodents in her home, which were impacting the health of the household. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of pests.

Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. Summary of reasons Pests Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible to remove any pest infestation. However, the landlord raised jobs for pest control, which visited on numerous occasions. When pest control recommended checking the drains to ensure there was no fault with the fabric of the home through which pests could access the property, there was a delay in the landlord arranging this.

The landlord also failed to communicate effectively with the resident, which prompted her to pursue updates. However, it appropriately offered compensation in recognition of the impact caused by its service failures. Complaint handling The resident experienced a delay of 5 working days in the landlord acknowledging her complaint at stage 2. However, the landlord then issued a stage 2 response 6 working days later, which was within its response timeframe of 20 working days and meant its delayed acknowledgement did not unduly affect the resident.

Putting things right Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to its handling of reports of pests, it should pay the £200 compensation offered for the impact on the resident. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 5 December 2024 The resident raised a formal complaint. The key points were as follows: There had been a pest issue for months.

Noises from pests in the ceiling were affecting the household’s sleep. She was concerned that the rats would chew wiring. She requested that the landlord get rid of the rats and provide compensation. 9 December 2024 The landlord acknowledged the complaint. 20 December 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It had first raised a pest control job on 20 June 2024, who had attended on multiple occasions to try to resolve the issue.

It apologised for not communicating information to the resident. It had asked another contractor to attend as a matter of urgency. It offered £25 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. 5 February 2025 The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The key points were as follows: She had reported pests months before 20 June 2024, but the landlord had taken no action. Pest control said rodents were likely to be feeding on rubbish in a neighbour’s garden and had reported to the landlord that rodents likely entered her property via the drains or a neighbour’s climbing plant and trellis.

The problem remained despite months of visits from pest control, which the landlord never monitored or followed up. Rodents had accessed the space between the ground and first floor. The landlord’s compensation offer was insulting. 19 February 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. 27 February 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It had been unable to find any reports of pests prior to 20 June 2024.

Pest control had attended on several occasions between July 2024 and November 2024. The contractor who attended the last 3 of these visits reported no bait taken but recommended checks at a neighbouring property and to inspect the drainage. The landlord apologised that it had not arranged any further works and would update the resident accordingly. It increased its compensation offer to £150, comprised of £100 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience and £50 for its delay in arranging follow-on works.

22 April 2025 The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response. The key points were as follows: Pests were impacting the household physically and emotionally. The landlord had provided no update since a voice mail on 28 March 2025 in which it stated a drain survey had been carried out next door and pest control measures were planned. It had not checked her drain. 6 May 2025 The resident referred her complaint to us. She requested that the landlord resolve the pests issue and provide a higher level of compensation.

7 May 2025 The landlord issued a post stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It could not discuss the neighbouring property due to data protection. It attended the resident’s drain on 30 December 2024 in relation to a blockage, with no additional works identified. It increased its compensation offer to £200 due to its lack of communication since its stage 2 complaint response. 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 Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests Finding Reasonable redress What we have not investigated We have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when the landlord raised a pest control job on 20 June 2024. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point, and subsequently up to its post stage 2 response on 7 May 2025.

We understand that the resident pursued further pest control issues following this, which she raised as a separate complaint with the landlord. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident.

We have considered the landlord’s compensation offers within our general assessment of its handling of her reports of pests. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. What we have investigated On 20 June 2024, the resident reported that there were rodents in the cavities in her home. The landlord raised a job for pest control, who attended 13 times between 24 June 2024 and 31 December 2024. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible to remove any infestation of pests.

Therefore, the landlord was under no obligation to raise a job for pest control. The landlord said it attended the resident’s drain on 30 December 2024 with no additional works required. It has not provided any details regarding this visit, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. On 6 January 2025, pest control recommended that the landlord check a neighbouring property and drains to ensure there were no breaks in the pipes that would allow rodents to access the resident’s home.

The landlord’s pests and infestations policy says it will tackle infestations where pests get in through a fault in the fabric of the building. However, it did not arrange works in relation to the neighbouring property until after it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2025. This was not appropriate, as the landlord needs to ensure it raises repair requests at the earliest opportunity to ensure that it then completes repairs within its published timescales. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, which prompted her to pursue updates.

It also identified that it had delayed arranging follow-on works to address the pest infestation. The landlord appropriately awarded compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. This has led to a finding of reasonable redress. Complaint Complaint handling Finding No maladministration Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.

The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 December 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days, which it did. Therefore, it complied with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 February 2025.

In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 February 2025, which was 5 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. However, it then issued a stage 2 response 6 working days later. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint sooner did not unduly impact the resident.

This has led to a finding of no maladministration. Learning Knowledge and information management (record keeping) It was unclear why there was a delay in the landlord taking any action following recommendations from pest control. The landlord has told us that its works coordination function has since moved to a regional structure to enable improved oversight, clearer accountability and better coordination of multi-disciplinary actions in cases of this nature. Communication The landlord’s communication in this case was poor.

It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case, the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident regarding the pest control issue. The landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.