Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202333293)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333293

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in May 2008. The property is a 3–bedroom ground–floor flat. The resident has said she has a phobia of mice. The resident’s son has acted as his mother’s representative in the case, and for the purposes of this report, both will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident reported mice in the property to the landlord on 11 April 2023. A pest control inspection was carried out on 21 April 2023. The notes say that there was no sign of pest activity, but as the resident said she had seen a mouse, rodenticide was left at the property. An additional visit was carried out on 5 May 2023, with the inspection notes saying that there were no signs of any pest activity and there had been no rodenticide consumption. The bait boxes were checked and replenished where required. The landlord’s operative recommended that proofing work was carried out under the kitchen units.
  3. A repair was raised on 9 June 2023 to seal the holes under the sink, around the boiler and soil pipes. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2023. She said that the property was “overrun with mice” and that she had had difficulty getting the landlord to resolve the issue. Furthermore, she said she felt she was being passed from 1 department to another with neither “working” to resolve the issue.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. It outlined its understanding of the complaint and said that:
    1. Three appointments were made to attend the property on 21 April, 5 and 19 May 2023. At these appointments traps were laid and poison deployed. At the first 2 visits no evidence of any mice was found. The appointment on 19 May 2023 was noted as a “no access” visit.
    2. A recommendation was made to fill the holes under the kitchen cabinets and an appointment had been scheduled for 24 July 2023.
    3. It had not identified any service failures as it had responded and attended to the pest issues within its agreed service levels. Therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
  5. Following contact from a local councillor, the landlord contacted the resident on 21 September 2023 and raised a stage 2 complaint. The resident said that although some of the holes were filled in on 24 July 2023, the operative identified further holes and did not address them at the time. She went on to explain that there were pipes in every room of the house that would allow entry for pests, and the new drain cover had holes that she thought the mice could get through.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 31 October 2023. It reiterated its response at stage 1 and apologised for the delay in providing its response. It went on to say that:
    1. An inspection was carried out on 29 June 2023 which revealed no sign of pest activity, or evidence that any rodenticide had been consumed, and no droppings within the property. The baits were replenished in case of any future activity.
    2. Following a visit on 19 October 2023, during which it was noted that further holes required filling in various locations, a works order had been raised. Operatives were scheduled to attend on 30 October 2023 to fill in the remaining potential points of ingress for the mice that had “been gaining access to the property”.
    3. In relation to the boxing in of the pipes throughout the property, this was not work its repair team would do as it had not been deemed essential. This was because no issues were noted with the pipe casings, and the pipes formed part of the central heating system, which was a sealed system with no points of access for rodents or any other pests.
    4. Having reviewed the stage 1 complaint, it noted that the full scope of works as outlined in its resolution was not completed. This resulted in delays and multiple attendances to resolve the issues raised. It identified a service failure for which it apologised.
    5. It offered the resident a total of £300 compensation, made up of £250 for its failure to properly address the rodent proofing works and £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
  7. The resident contacted this Service in December 2023. As a resolution she sought to have the remaining pipe casings blocked and works undertaken to ensure no further entry for pests. Further work was completed by the landlord in 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. The British Pest Control Association (BPCA) is the professional organisation for the UK public health pest management industry. It says it promotes the highest standards of professionalism within the industry, allowing only organisations that prove their competence to join as members.
  2. The BPCA outlines the responsibilities and correct practices that its members are expected to adhere to. The landlord’s pest control contractor is a member of the BPCA.
  3. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy says that responsibility for preventing, reducing, and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, its residents, and the local authority. It says it is responsible for identifying and blocking any potential access points in the structure of its properties. The landlord’s website echoes this by saying it is responsible for sealing openings that allow pests into the home.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy requires it to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and complete non-emergency repairs to individual properties and communal areas within 28 calendar days.
  5. On 11 April 2023, the resident reported mice in the property. She followed up with the landlord on 14 April 2023, expressing her fear of mice. Case notes indicate that the landlord’s contractors attended the property on 21 April 2023. The contractor observed no signs of pest activity, but since the resident had reported seeing a mouse, rodenticide was applied. The landlord responded promptly to the pest reports, attending within its policy timeframe of 28 days, and it was reasonable for the reports to be classified as non-emergency repairs.
  6. Additionally, it was a resolution-focused approach for the contractor to lay bait despite finding no evidence of pests, due to the resident’s report of seeing a mouse. This action aimed to alleviate the resident’s concerns and was a positive response by the landlord.
  7. During the ongoing treatment, the landlord’s contractors visited the property on 5 and 19 May 2023, but access was only obtained on 1 occasion. On the first visit on 5 May 2023, the contractor observed no signs of pest activity and noted that the rodenticide had not been consumed. However, they recommended that proofing work be carried out beneath the kitchen units. According to the repair log, this proofing was completed on 24 July 2023, approximately 80 days after the initial recommendation. This was not appropriate and significantly outside the landlord’s 28–day policy timescale. It is likely the delay prolonged the resident’s distress. It is noted that no access was gained during the visit of 19 May 2023, but this appointment appeared to be for treatment only and not proofing of the property.
  8. On 12 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, expressing her dissatisfaction with the duration of the pest problem resolution. The landlord and resident maintained communication, during which the resident said that environmental health (EH) had visited and found evidence of rats in the property. This Service has not had sight of the report. The landlord requested a copy of the EH report and contacted its pest control team for further information. Throughout June 2023, the landlord actively sought the EH report and details of the visit to coordinate with the local council, adhering to its pest control policy, which emphasises shared responsibility.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. This detailed a timeline of events and the actions taken to address the pest issue. The landlord’s actions showed it responded appropriately to the reports of mice in the property, with evidence showing that it visited 3 times over a 2-month period and implemented a treatment plan.
  10. On the same day, the landlord spoke with the resident, who was “adamant” that there was a rat problem at the property. In response, a pest control operative conducted another visit on 29 June 2023. According to the case notes, no signs of pest activity were observed, such as droppings or rodenticide consumption. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns within a reasonable timeframe and showed that it was taking the matter seriously.
  11. A case note entry for 29 June 2023 shows that the landlord contacted the pest control operative who visited on 29 June 2023. They said that “activity was low, but no evidence of rats”. This was at odds with the same operative’s inspection notes, which said there was no sign of pest activity at all, and is concerning.
  12. Between 18 August and 15 September 2023, the pest control operative visited the property 3 times, each time noting no signs of pest activity. During the visit on 18 August 2023, the resident reported that the drain cover on the balcony was damaged. The operative advised that it should be replaced as soon as possible. The repair was completed on 11 September 2023, as recorded in the repair log, which was 24 days later. Although this was within the policy’s 28-day timeframe, the response was not prompt according to the operative’s recommendation to replace the cover without delay, which may have caused additional worry to the resident.
  13. On 21 September 2023, the resident submitted a stage 2 complaint saying there were still entry points for pest access, and she did not think the drain cover was suitable as it had holes in it. The landlord engaged with the resident to discuss and clarify the reasons for escalating request. This approach was appropriate, as it aligned with good practice to understand the specific concerns behind a complaint. The resident mentioned that some entry points had been sealed, but there remained access points throughout the property via pipework.
  14. On 5 October 2023, a work order was issued to remove the kitchen worktop and fill any holes behind the units. Additionally, holes in the toilet, cupboards, and at the bottom of the boiler were to be filled. The work was completed by 9 October 2023, as evidenced by the records. While this was within the landlord’s policy timescale, it is noteworthy that a previous repair request, raised on 6 June 2023, also involved sealing 2 large holes around pipes under the boiler and was completed on 24 July 2023. Therefore, it is unclear why an additional work order was necessary for what appears to be the same repair. The need for repeat visits prolonged a resolution for the resident, which evidently caused her distress and inconvenience.
  15. On 31 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated the points it made at stage 1 and provided additional details about the actions taken. The landlord explained that the drain cover included vents designed to allow water to flow from the balcony while trapping larger debris. It clarified that if the balcony drain were to become blocked or covered, there would be a risk of flooding, which was why no further work had been undertaken regarding this issue. This provided a clear and suitable explanation addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord further explained that the heating pipes could not be enclosed because no problems had been identified with the pipe casings. Additionally, the pipes were part of a sealed central heating system, which lacked any access points for rodents or other pests. This was another clear and appropriate explanation to address the resident’s concerns.
  16. The stage 2 response stated that repairs had been scheduled for 30 October 2023, to seal the remaining potential entry points used by mice. It also acknowledged that not all pest entry holes had been addressed and that the full scope of work outlined in its resolution had not been completed, leading to delays and multiple visits. This was a positive step by the landlord by apologising and accepting its failings. It offered the resident £250 compensation, which was reasonable.

Events post complaint

  1. Between 23 January and 5 June 2024, the landlord continued its pest control treatments. An additional 4 work orders were issued to seal holes throughout the property in an effort to prevent pest entry, as the resident continued to report mice infestations. The notes show that “low mice activity” was found on 23 January and 6 February 2024. On 25 February 2024, the landlord’s operative noted that the only effective long-term solution was to carry out proofing behind the kitchen units and within the first-floor heating cupboard.
  2. The landlord’s ongoing efforts reflect a proactive approach toward resolving the issue. However, the persistent reports suggest that these measures were not entirely effective, and the landlord should have implemented the recommended proofing measures earlier to achieve a long-term resolution.

Summary and conclusion

  1. The landlord conducted 9 treatment visits between April 2023 and February 2024, along with efforts to address the mice entry points. Its actions reflected a positive intent but did not fully succeed in resolving the problem, particularly regarding timely long-term proofing and comprehensive sealing of entry points. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the full scope of work outlined in its resolution had not been completed, resulting in delays and multiple visits.
  2. The visiting operatives consistently reported no mice activity, and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its qualified professionals. The landlord’s pest control operatives having membership of the BPCA demonstrate the landlord’s intention to follow professional best practices, which is positive. Nevertheless, there was contradictory evidence whereby a visit on 29 June 2023 noted no mice activity, but a case note on the same day noted “low” activity. The landlord did not identify or address this discrepancy. The inconsistency raises concerns about the reliability of the pest monitoring and record keeping, which could have led to delays or ineffective treatments. This was supported by the detection of “low activity” during visits on 21 January and 6 June 2024, which was after the completion of entry point works, despite earlier inspections having reported no signs of mice activity. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
  3. We identified further concerns from the landlord’s repair log, which indicated that work to fill holes under the kitchen cabinets and throughout the property was completed on 9 November 2023. However, this is inconsistent with subsequent entries in the repair log, which showed that additional holes needed to be filled across the property over the following 4 months. While it is acknowledged that the additional holes may not have been identified during the initial stages of the reports, the landlord should have inspected the entire property to satisfy itself that it was meeting its responsibilities “for sealing openings that allow pests into the home”.
  4. The resident repeatedly expressed that she had a phobia of mice and consistently reported an infestation over a period of 11 months, which was clearly frustrating for her. The ongoing problem caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s response, while generally timely, did not fully meet the expectations of effective and prompt resolution as outlined in its policies. It did, however, offer the resident £250 compensation. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of some level of failure were it not for these steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failings at stage 2 and offering proportionate compensation. We therefore find there was reasonable redress in landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.
  5. The decision has been made to address the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the substantive complaint. This is because it offered £50 on 31 October 2023 for its delay in providing a stage 2 response. Its offer of £50 is similarly considered proportionate to put things right, and had this Service assessed complaint handling separately, we would have found reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident:
      1. The £250 compensation it previously offered to her in relation to this case, if it has not already done so.
      2. The £50 compensation it previously offered to her for its delayed stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so.

Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that these amounts are paid.

  1. Contacts the resident to ascertain the current situation with regards to the rodent infestation and actions any outstanding works identified by its pest control contractor.
  2. Familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against these reports, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.
  3. Reviews and (where necessary) improves its pest management procedures to ensure comprehensive inspections and sealing of all potential entry points in a timely manner.