Stockport Homes Limited (202330786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330786

Stockport Homes Limited

12 June 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 handling of the resident’s reports of beetles in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 23 September 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the tenth floor of a high-rise block. The resident told the landlord that he has Aspergers syndrome and its records reflect this.
4. The local authority pest control team visited the property on 17 and 19 January 2023 and 2 February 2023. They discovered live mealworms (which are the larvae of darkling beetles) and treated the hallway, living room, kitchen, and bedroom with insecticide. They noted that the property was “very clean and tidy” and therefore the problem may be coming from an adjoining flat. On 2 February 2023 they noted that holes in the bathroom wall needed to be sealed as the resident told them he had seen mealworms coming through them.
5. The landlord raised a repair job on 9 March 2023 to fill in holes around the pipework in the bathroom. A plasterer attended on 22 March 2023, however, could not complete the work and closed the job down. The resident called the landlord on 11 April 2023 to chase the work and the landlord raised another repair job the same day. A tiler completed the job on 20 April 2023.
6. The local authority pest control team attended the property again on 28 April 2023 and 15 May 2023. They treated the property with insecticide again. On 15 May 2023 the landlord raised another repairs job to assess if there were any further holes in the walls that were letting mealworms in. It noted that it completed this job on 25 May 2023. However, the resident has told us that he filled in further holes himself.
7. On 6 June 2023 the local authority pest control team attended the property again and set traps. When they attended the property on 21 June 2023, they noted that there was no longer any evidence of infestation and the treatment was complete.
8. The resident complained on 30 June 2023. He said that he had found 2 more beetles in his bedroom and that the infestation had had an impact on his mental health and ability to enjoy his home.
9. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 19 July 2023. It said that:
   1. The pest control team had said that there were no sign of mealworms, beetles, or other insects at their most recent visit.
   2. It was confident that the source of the mealworms was not within the resident’s home as it was very clean. Therefore, it was looking at other possible sources.
   3. It had gained access to every adjacent property apart from 1. It was pursuing access to this flat via its legal team.
   4. It had committed to paying for the pest control.
   5. It appreciated that the situation had impacted on him comfortably living in his home and being able to invite friends and family around.
   6. It did not uphold his complaint as it had followed appropriate process.
10. The landlord arranged for the pest control team to put traps down again on 11 August 2023. They checked these on 31 August 2023 and found them to be empty with no sign of infestation.
11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 4 September 2023. He requested compensation. The landlord responded on 28 September 2023. It said that:
    1. It had organised and paid for the pest control treatment to the property.
    2. It had investigated all possible sources and would be inspecting the final adjacent property on 30 October 2023. It would update him on the outcome of this.
    3. It understood that the infestation affected him, especially considering his diagnosis of Aspergers syndrome, and that he had felt isolated as a result. However, it had found no evidence of service failure and therefore would award no compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident described the effect the infestation had on his mental health. We do not doubt his comments. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. However, we have considered whether he experienced any general distress because of any errors by the landlord.

Pests

13. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will pay for the removal of infestations of rats, mice, squirrels, or cockroaches from tenanted properties under the following circumstances:
    1. They are determined to be a health risk, or
    2. They have the potential to cause damage to the property, and
    3. They have not been caused by the lifestyle of the occupant.

The policy says that residents will be expected to pay for the removal of pests from their own properties in any other circumstances.

14. The landlord could have made the decision that the mealworms and darkling beetles would not damage the property and were not a risk to health in which case it could have refused to pay for pest control. However, it used its discretion to do so and in the stage 2 complaint response it said that it made this decision to alleviate the resident’s frustration. This was a good use of its discretion.
15. The pest control team took several visits to completely eradicate the mealworms from the property. This meant that it took 6 months to completely remove the pests. However, they communicated with the resident and returned at regular intervals.
16. After their second visit, on 19 January 2023, the pest control team recorded that the infestation probably started in an adjacent flat. It is uncertain whether they alerted the landlord to this. However, as the landlord was aware of the issue and decided to pay for the treatment it would reasonably be expected to ask about the source of the pests. We have seen no evidence that the landlord inspected the neighbouring properties for several months. It did not communicate about this to the resident until he complained. This oversight cost him time and trouble making the complaint and may have extended the period of infestation and resultant distress.
17. The pest control team also told the landlord that holes needed filling in the bathroom. The landlord raised a repair job but the operative that attended could not complete the job. The resident took more time and trouble contacting the landlord again because the original job was closed down in error. This delay would be likely to have caused him distress as he was concerned that mealworms were entering through the holes.
18. In summary, the landlord used its discretion to pay for the pest control services. However, it delayed in checking the adjacent properties and did not communicate with the resident about this. There was also a delay in filling the holes in the bathroom. Therefore, there was service failure in its handling of the residents reports of beetles in the property. We have therefore ordered it to pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the time, trouble, and distress this caused. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Record keeping

19. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate and timely records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate records and this could result in unfairness to the resident.
20. We asked the landlord to provide evidence about when the resident first reported the issue. However, it has not provided this and therefore we do not know the timeframe in which it responded or what advice it initially gave. We have also asked it to provide the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process but it has not provided this. Therefore, we are not clear of the exact reasons he wanted to escalate the complaint and whether the landlord addressed these in its response.
21. This lack of records means that it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation of this issue. Therefore, there was service failure in its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of beetles in the property.

b.   Record keeping.

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified.
24. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of his reports of beetles in the property.
25. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its procedures to ensure that when it takes responsibility for pest control services it liaises with that service about the source of the infestation. This is to ensure that it takes action where an infestation is originating from a neighbouring property. It should then ensure that it updates affected residents.
26. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report a manager must review the case to understand why the record keeping failure occurred. It should then update this Service with its findings including a remedy to ensure it does not occur again.
27. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendation

28. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss a possible source of the infestation because he has told us that he now has further information regarding this.