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

Housing Solutions (202301870)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301870

Housing Solutions

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:

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of silverfish in her property, including the level of compensation offered.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2.             The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 19 October 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.

3.             In December 2021, the resident reported the presence of silverfish. On 9 March 2023, she raised a complaint as she had been unable to reach the external pest control contractor that the landlord had referred her to. She wanted the landlord to arrange for them to attend or provide details of another pest control company. In the landlord’s response of 10 June 2023, it advised the resident that it was her responsibility to deal with silverfish.

4.             On 14 March 2023, the resident raised another complaint. She stated there had been silverfish in her property since 2021 and the landlord would not resolve it. In the stage 1 response of 23 March 2023, the landlord noted the actions it had taken since December 2021, including works to seal a bath panel that day. It reiterated that it was the resident’s responsibility to deal with pests affecting her home only.

5.             The resident initially escalated her complaint on 12 April 2023. She stated that the complaint response did not reflect the extent of the infestation and the reports she had made. She noted that at a visit in April, the landlord did not see silverfish; however, they did not show in the day but during early morning or at night. The landlord did not escalate the complaint until after the Ombudsman contacted it. In the stage 2 response of 7 August 2023, the landlord confirmed it had arranged for its pest control contractor to visit and eliminate the silverfish. It offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience.

6.             The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the landlord’s stage 3 complaint panel. The landlord responded on 27 October 2023. It noted that its pest control contractor had attended and saw no obvious signs of damp and leaks. The contractor found 3 silverfish and conducted a pesticide–free treatment to all cracks. The landlord noted that it had caried out surveys and treatment, and provided advice. It had also offered £50. It considered it could not do more, therefore it would not escalate the complaint.

7.             The resident initially referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 December 2023. She stated that the landlord only acted in 2023, after our involvement. The resident has contacted us several times since stating that she still has silverfish throughout her property, which has affected her mental and physical wellbeing. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it understands from its recent contact with the resident that she has not experienced further problems with silverfish.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8.             The resident has advised that the ongoing presence of silverfish in her property has affected her physical and mental wellbeing. Whilst the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability. Nor can we decide whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have caused and had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We also cannot calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Courts of law can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. The landlord’s liability insurer may also consider medical evidence and settle claims. However, the Ombudsman can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from a landlord’s service failure.

Silverfish

9.             The resident’s tenancy agreement states that “The Association will arrange for clearance of any vermin or pests in communal areas (e.g. rats, fleas) however you will be responsible for arranging clearance of any vermin or pest infestations within the premises.” The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy also states that residents are responsible for “Pest control affecting one home only (unless part of a block of flats or due to the infestation being caused by a defect in the structure of the building).”

10.        The Ombudsman, as stated in our pest control guidance, considers silverfish to be a pest. The landlord, as noted in its repairs policy is responsible for the structure of the building and “the structural fittings and fixtures of the building, including internal doors.” The policy also confirms that the landlord should remedy any defect in the building that may contribute to the presence of pests. Following the resident’s initial report of 17 December 2021, the landlord raised a job “to fill cracks in various areas including windows, doors and gaps between skirting to prevent silverfish entering the property”. It was in accordance with its responsibilities that the landlord raised an order to seal gaps to stop silverish entering.

11.        The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that for non-emergency responsive repairs, it should make a “suitable appointment at the convenience of the resident within 21 days”. In this case, the landlord made an appointment for 20 January 2022 which was outside this timeframe. Furthermore, it did not complete works to seal the property on 20 January 2022; it only inspected. The landlord established that there were gaps under the skirting where silverfish could enter. It decided to “rebook for 4 hours to seal the skirting in the downstairs lobby, living room, landing and bedroom”. Having raised an order to fill in cracks / gaps it was unreasonable that it did not seal any on 20 January 2021 as this caused delay. As silverfish are more likely to be present in winter, it was important not to delay works.

12.        The landlord made another appointment for 7 March 2022. The resident cancelled the appointment which was out of the landlord’s control. However, it rescheduled the appointment for 9 May 2022 which was not adequately prompt. This is because the new appointment was 2 months later, outside the requirement to make an appointment within 21 days. The landlord’s records show that it completed the works to seal cracks and gaps on 9 May 2023.

13.        As stated in our pest control guidance, residents or their homes may not be root cause or source of pest infestations so landlord should investigate fully before deciding who is responsible. It should use expert surveyors and seek input to guide responses. Silverfish are attracted to areas with high moisture levels such as bathrooms and kitchens. Their presence can be a sign of damp and humidity. Leaks can contribute to increased humidity level. The landlord was therefore required to investigate to what extent dampness and humidity were issues in the property. A file note from the visit of 20 January 2022 stated, “A surveyor has come out to check for damp but not pest control.” However, there is no evidence of a surveyor visit or of any findings in relation to damp and humidity. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the need for measures that might minimize humidity. Such measures included the use of humidifiers, increasing ventilation and heating the property. As such, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to investigate following the resident’s initial reports of silverfish.

14.        Pending the works to seal the property, on 27 January 2022, the landlord suggested to the resident that she contact its external pest control contractor. It stated she could get discounted rates. On 9 March 2022, the resident complained she had been unable to reach the contractor despite leaving phone messages and completing webforms. She wanted the landlord to arrange attendance or provide details of another pest control company. The landlord did not respond until 10 June 2022, over 3 months later which was an unreasonable delay. Its response was not supportive as it simply suggested that the resident email the pest control contractor. It had put the onus on the resident to arrange and pay for pest control, even after she had asked it to intervene. It was unreasonable that it did not try to ensure she obtained a response, especially as it had a working relationship with the contractor.

15.        In fact, our pest control guidance recommends “a joined-up link between any local pest control companies and the landlord – automated and streamlined – needs to think about a link ‘officer’ or ‘person’”. We have made a recommendation to this end.

16.        The evidence shows that the resident next contacted the landlord on 9 October 2022. She said the pest control contractor had responded but told her it would not come to her property. They had also not confirmed whether the pests were silverfish or firebrats after she had sent them photos. The landlord did not respond until 23 November 2022, over 6 weeks later, which again was an unreasonable delay. It stated that the pest control contractor had confirmed that it did not treat silverfish. The fact that the landlord referred her to its contractor before confirming they dealt with silverfish caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience, time, and trouble. The delays she experienced in receiving responses from both the contractor and the landlord exacerbated this.

17.        The resident had also indicated on 9 October 2022 that a neighbour had the same issue. The landlord should have therefore considered inspecting the communal areas and other flats within the block. This was particularly important as it would be responsible for all pest control treatments if silverfish were in more than one property.

18.        The resident raised another complaint on 14 March 2023. She stated she was unhappy there had been silverfish in the property since 2021, and the landlord was not resolving it. The landlord attended her property on 23 March 2023. Its records state the operative sealed around a bath panel and advised the resident to use a spray on one wall at a time. After the resident again reported silverfish on 31 March 2023, the landlord arranged a damp survey for 21 April 2023. It found no evidence of damp or mould, and it did not witness any silverfish. It noted that the floors were sealed. However, it noted some loose kitchen tiles, so it raised an order to refix and reseal the tiles with new grouting. The landlord completed these works on 26 April 2023 according to its records. Through completing the works in March and April 2023, the landlord took further steps to remedy any identified defects that may have allowed silverfish to enter.

19.        However, the landlord asked the resident to monitor the situation on 21 April 2023. She made further reports of silverfish on 15 May 2023 and over the next 3 months. The landlord did not consider taking further action until after the Ombudsman asked it to escalate her complaint. It advised the resident by phone on 4 August 2023 that it would instruct its pest control contractor to carry out treatment. It confirmed this in the stage 2 response of 7 August 2023. This was nearly 3 months after the resident reported the continuing presence of silverfish. Again, this was an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident. It then did not instruct the pest controller until 29 August 2023, according to its repair records, which increased the delay.

20.        The landlord was not obliged to pay to treat silverfish under the tenancy agreement or repairs policy. Nonetheless, it was prudent that the landlord did do so given the actions taken had not eradicated the silverfish. It is not clear why the pest control contractor agreed to complete the silverfish treatment when it had refused the previous year. Regardless, the contractor attended the resident property, initially on 1 September 2023. Their report dated 29 September 2023 confirmed they inspected all rooms, the kitchen cupboards, and the area behind the fridge. There were no obvious signs of damp and leaks. They found 3 silverfish – 1 under the sofa, 1 under the fridge, 1 behind the television. They carried out a pesticide–free treatment to “all cracks, crevices and wall-floor junctions and skirting boards.”  The contractor suggested the continued use of insecticides and attempting to control the humidity.

21.        The pest control treatment was to the benefit of the resident. However, there were still further steps that the landlord could have taken, in line with its responsibilities. The pest control contractor made a recommendation to control the humidity, but the landlord did not consider if and how this could be achieved. The pest controller indicated that there were still cracks in the property (which they had sprayed). The landlord could therefore have considered whether to seal the property further, especially as the silverfish were throughout the property not just in the bathroom. Furthermore, as noted, there were grounds to consider inspecting communal areas and other flats.

22.        In summary, the landlord carried out works to seal gaps and cracks. It also inspected for damp and leaks. This was in line with its repair and pest control responsibilities. However, it delayed carrying out the initial set of works and did not consider whether there were any more cracks and gaps after the pest control contractor’s report. It has also not considered if there is a need to minimize humidity in the property or whether this is feasible. It should also have considered inspecting communal areas and other flats in the block. Regarding its communication, it has delayed in responding to the resident’s reports and queries. It did not support her after referring her to its pest control contractor. Taken altogether, there was maladministration by the landlord.

23.        The landlord offered the resident £50 for her inconvenience. This was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case given the extent of the failings. We award the resident £400 compensation. In making this award, we have considered our Remedies Guidance. We have considered the level of redress suggested for cases of maladministration where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

24.        We have also noted the parties have given conflicting statements as to whether silverfish remains a problem. We therefore order the landlord to arrange a visit to the resident’s property and consider any reports received of silverfish. It should consider whether there are any more gaps and cracks it can seal. It should inspect for damp areas and also consider whether the humidity of the property should be reduced and how this can be achieved. On completion of the visit, it should outline its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman. We also recommend that the landlord considers inspecting communal areas and other flats.

Complaint Handling

25.        At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a 3–stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint in 5 working days and send the response within 10 working days or agree an extension. At stage 2, a senior manager should respond within 20 working days or agree an extension which should not exceed 10 days. After both stages 1 and 2, the resident has 21 days to escalate the complaint. At stage 3, a panel can consider the complaint at a hearing. If the landlord decides it is not appropriate to escalate the complaint to the panel, it should provide a “full and final” explanation.

26.        The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “A process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman”. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord now has a 2-stage complaint procedure in line with the code.

27.        We have considered the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Following the resident’s complaint of 14 March 2023, the landlord sent the stage 1 response on 23 March 2023. This was within the 10–working day timeframe. The resident escalated the complaint on 12 April 2023 which was within the 21-day timeframe; however, the landlord did not register a stage 2 complaint as required by the complaint procedure. It missed another opportunity to register a stage 2 complaint after resident chased up her complaint on 6 June 2023. In this instance, the landlord agreed to respond but did not do so.

28.        On 10 July 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident’s escalated complaint by 17 August 2023. It was only after this contact that the landlord escalated the complaint.

29.        The parties have not provided a copy of the resident’s response to the stage 2 decision. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 October 2023 to advise that it would not escalate her complaint to the stage 3 panel. While a complaint panel may have reached different findings of the complaint, the landlord followed its complaint procedure by explaining why it would not escalate the complaint. The decision not to escalate the complaint also allowed the resident to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.

30.        In conclusion, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timeframe of its complaints procedure. It also explained why it would not escalate the complaint to the stage 3 panel. However, there was service failure in its complaint handling due to the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. For this, we award the resident £50 compensation. In making this award we have considered our Remedies Guidance. We have considered the level of redress suggested for cases of service failure. This covers cases where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination

31.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of silverfish in her property, including the level of compensation offered.

32.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33.        The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:

  1. pay the resident £450 compensation comprising:
    1. £400 for her time and trouble arising from the failures in its handling of her reports of silverfish in her property.
    2. £50 for the delay and her time and trouble on pursuing her complaint.
    3. The landlord may deduct form this award the total of any compensation paid in respect of this complaint.
  2. arrange a visit to the resident’s property and consider any new reports received of silverfish. It should consider whether there are any more gaps and cracks it can seal. It should inspect for damp areas and also consider whether the property’s humidity should be reduced and, if so, how this can be achieved. On completion of the visit, it should outline its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

34.        The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:

  1. consider carrying out an inspection of communal areas and other flats. In making decision, it can take into account any reports of dampness or silverfish by other residents.
  2. consider if and how its communication with its pest control contractor can be improved. This includes considering where there is an automated and streamlined link with local pest control companies. This also involves considering the need for a link officer.