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

Karibu Community Homes Limited (202317421)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317421

Karibu Community Homes Limited

20 February 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 an ant infestation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 13 October 2008. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her 2 adult sons.
  2. The resident’s son is acting as an advocate on behalf of the resident in this case. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and the advocate will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 11 July 2022, to report that ants were coming into the house from holes in the bathroom and kitchen. The resident told the landlord that it had left gaps where the ants were entering when it replaced the bathroom the year before. The landlord told the resident that it could not help as pest infestations were the resident’s responsibility. Although it did agree to pass on the resident’s concerns and said that someone would call them back.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 June 2023, as the landlord refused to seal the holes in the kitchen and bathroom to stop the ants from entering the property. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 7 July 2023. It said the construction of the drainage pipe and concrete floor slab/screed floor made it very unlikely that pests would enter the resident’s home in the reported area. It said there were no noted defects in the outside brick work that would provide a point of entry for pests. It said if it had seen entry points, it would have raised the necessary works. It also said it was the tenant’s responsibility to address pest issues.
  5. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. It said it would not remove the kitchen units to find the holes the resident believed the ants were entering from. Although it said that it would be happy to arrange for a contractor to seal any other holes the resident found in other areas. It said it had raised an order for its contractor to attend on 19 August 2023 to seal any small external holes and gaps around the door threshold.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of an ant infestation

  1. The resident first reported the ant infestation to the landlord by telephone on 11 July 2022. They told the landlord that the ants were getting into the bathroom via a hole that had been left after a bathroom refurbishment. The landlord told the resident that pest issues were the tenant’s responsibility. The resident challenged the landlord’s response, so the landlord agreed that someone would call them back.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 July 2022. The details of the call are unclear from the evidence provided, as the landlord has not provided a file note or transcript of the call. However, the resident sent a follow up email to the landlord on the same day with attached images and videos of the ants in both the kitchen and the bathroom. The images were of large flying ants. The resident confirmed to the landlord that they had tried to treat the ants. They said the ants continued to get in via the holes left by the landlord’s contractors following work to the property.
  3. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord completed a property inspection, although the resident refers to a visit in his communication with the landlord. Assuming the visit did take place, it is unclear from the evidence provided what the outcome of the visit was. It is also unclear as to whether any work was carried out by the landlord to block up the holes following the visit. The evidence does not show any further contact from the resident from July 2022 until January 2023. Although it would be reasonable to conclude that this was because the ants were not active over the winter period.
  4. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of a pest policy, so it is assumed that it does not have one in place. It has provided an extract from the information it gives to its residents. The information directs resident to the local authority in the first instance. It also directs residents to private pest control companies. It says that ants do not pose a health risk and recommends vacuuming them up or using ant sprays or powder to treat the nest.
  5. However, in this case the ants were large flying ants and they were in both the bathroom and the kitchen. The resident had also tried to treat them with standard ant powder, but it had not worked. In addition, our pest guidance for landlords (on our website) says that landlords should not place the onus on the resident to sort out the pest problem. This is because the resident may not be the root cause of the problem. Landlords should investigate fully before deciding who is responsible. The guidance also says that landlords should employ expert surveyors and seek input to guide its response to the pest issue.
  6. Therefore, as the landlord’s response was to place the responsibility for the ant infestation on the resident in the first instance, its response to the resident’s reports the infestation was unreasonable. This is because it made its decision before inspecting the property, and it did not seek the advice or guidance of an expert.
  7. The resident began contacting the landlord again about the ant infestation and holes under the kitchen units in February 2023. The evidence suggests that the landlord visited the resident’s property on 13 March 2023. Although the landlord has not provided any details of the outcome of the inspection.
  8. The resident chased the landlord on 17 April 2023 as the ants had started to enter their home again. The resident spoke to the landlord on 16 May 2023 by telephone. It appears from the resident’s later emails that the landlord said it would review his earlier correspondence. However, by 1 June 2023, the resident had not received a response. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident. The landlord’s lack of response shows a lack of empathy towards the resident’s situation. There was also a lack of urgency in helping the resident with the infestation given that the same issue had occurred in 2022. The ants were not just small ants, there were also large flying ants entering the property.
  9. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 1 June 2023. It said the holes in the kitchen were where “the drainage entered the building” but they did not “breach the internal cavity to the external wall”. Therefore, it saw no “visual cracks or opening to the external walls that would not be linked to the holes referred to in the kitchen”. It said it would not remove parts of the kitchen to access the holes, as they would have been sealed as part of the floor slab and the final floor screed.
  10. The resident challenged the landlord’s response on 4 June 2023. They said it was irrelevant that the landlord could not see cracks or openings to the external walls. They said it was the landlord’s responsibility to fill the holes, particularly where they were causing an issue.
  11. Landlord’s must deal with a pest infestation if it is caused by a repair that it is responsible for fixing. Under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord is responsible for repairs to internal walls. Therefore, by refusing to fully inspect and repair the holes in the walls, the landlord did not act in line with its statutory repairing responsibilities. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and unfair to the resident who had to repeatedly treat the inside of their property with ant powder.
  12. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 June 2023 as the landlord had refused to fill the holes within the kitchen. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 7 July 2023. It said the hole in the kitchen was for the drainage pipe to enter the building. It said the drainage pipe ran through a concrete floor slab and the finished screed floor. It said, due to the way it was built, it was very unlikely the pests would enter via this route. It confirmed that it did not see any defects in the outside brick work that would provide a point of entry for pests. It said if it had, it would have raised the necessary works. The landlord also provided a link for the resident to access. This was information to help the resident prevent and remove insect activity from their home.
  13. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 10 July 2023. This was because they believed the landlord’s decision not to block up the holes had been based on assumptions. They pointed out that ants could eat through most materials. They also provided images of where the ants were coming from inside their home.
  14. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 3 August 2023. It said it would not remove the kitchen units to find any cracks or openings the resident believed the ants were coming from. However, it said it would arrange for a contractor to seal holes in any other areas where ants could be seen entering the property. It said it had raised an order for its contractor to visit on 19 August 2023 and seal up any small external holes and gaps around the door threshold.
  15. Although it was appropriate to arrange for a contractor to seal the holes and gaps around the door threshold, the landlord did not provide any meaningful explanation as to why it would not address the holes in the kitchen. The explanation given was confusing and relied on the resident having technical knowledge. The evidence provided suggests that the landlord did not want to move the kitchen units, even though this was where the resident said the ants were coming from. This was unreasonable and unfair. Particularly as it was happy to seal any other hole in the property. In the circumstances, the landlord could have sought advice from a pest specialist. Had it done so, it may have been able to address the issue much sooner and avoid the need for escalation.
  16. In summary, the landlord placed the responsibility for resolving the pest infestation on the resident before it investigated. It did not seek guidance from an expert or pest specialist. It did not act in line with its statutory repairing responsibilities, and it showed a lack of empathy and urgency in addressing the infestation. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.
  17. It should be noted that the resident has told us that the issue with the ant infestation is still unresolved. They said that they are expecting the flying ants to come into their property again once the weather gets warmer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of an ant infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £225 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the ant infestation. This must be paid directly to the resident.
    3. Instruct a suitably qualified pest control specialist to inspect the resident’s property and provide solutions to the ant infestation. This should include pest proofing the bathroom and kitchen and may require the removal of the kitchen units. It is understood that, following the inspection, the work may not be able to be completed at this time of year as the ants are not yet visible. If that is the case, the landlord must pre-book the work in with the resident and the pest control specialist for a more suitable time.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider updating its policy/guidelines on pest control in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.