MHS Homes Ltd (202322695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322695

MHS Homes Ltd

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a mouse infestation in the property.
2. Request for a housing transfer.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 3-bedroom maisonette within a purpose-built block of flats (the building), with her 3 children. The resident has bipolar disorder, and the landlord is aware of this.
In March 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that mice were entering her property. In response, the landlord instructed its internal pest control team to inspect and treat the issue. Between September 2021 and November 2021, the resident continued to report mouse sightings. The landlord subsequently engaged a specialist pest control contractor to investigate.
On 29 March 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the mouse infestation was worsening. She acknowledged the landlord’s previous efforts in instructing a specialist pest control contractor to address the issue but reported that the traps and proofing measures implemented so far, had not worked.
Between 3 May 2022 and 5 May 2022, the landlord issued the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its efforts to eradicate the rodent infestation, summarised the actions the pest control contractor had taken to address the issue, and upheld the resident’s complaint. As part of its response, the landlord engaged a different pest control contractor to address the infestation. It also informed the contractor of an estate–wide rodent problem affecting several properties and explained that it had been working with individual properties to resolve the issue.
Between 16 May 2022 and 27 July 2022, the pest control contractor attended the resident’s property multiple times and identified rodent activity under the kitchen base units and in the water tank cupboard located in the kitchen. The contractor also noted holes in the floor and walls of the kitchen. It carried out proofing works to the kitchen base units and laid bait traps to monitor the situation further.
On 26 August 2022, the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It informed her that communal works to prevent rodents were ongoing across the estate and that it had a long–term plan to address the issue. It also awarded the resident £942.98 in compensation, stating that this amount was equivalent to a 5% rent reduction, backdated to cover the period during which it had been aware of the issue. Between September 2022 and November 2022, the resident continued to report monthly sightings of mice entering her property.
The resident escalated her concerns to the local MP on 8 August 2023 and then raised a new formal complaint with the landlord on 14 August 2023, stating that she had lived with a mouse infestation in the property for 5 years and that the actions taken by pest control contractors had failed to resolve the issue. She reported that the ongoing situation was impacting her mental health and said she wanted to move to another property. On 21 August 2023, the resident stated that her property and personal belongings had been damaged over the years due to the infestation. She also reported that she had been forced to take out loans to replace her possessions.
On 24 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the continued presence of mice in the property and stated that the current pest control contractor suspected the main entry point of the mice was from the water tank cupboard in the kitchen. The landlord advised that it would assess what proofing works could be carried out to address the issue and informed the resident that she could bid for an alternative property on its home bidding site. As part of its response, the landlord also awarded the resident £500 in compensation in recognition of the ongoing situation with mice entering her property.
On 3 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process as she remained dissatisfied with its handling of the mouse infestation in the property and the effect the ongoing situation was having on her children and mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 2 October 2023. It confirmed it was addressing the rodent issue through a wider estate baiting program and conducting regular inspections of communal areas to manage the removal of food sources quickly. The landlord advised the resident to submit the costs of replacing her damaged items to its insurance team.
On the same day, the resident escalated her complaint to this service, stating that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the rodent infestation, emphasising that the issue had gone on for several years.
On 4 December 2023, the landlord awarded the resident with a £200 full and final settlement payment for the damage caused to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed that the landlord’s handling of her complaint negatively impacted her mental health. We acknowledge the resident’s comments, and we understand this has been a difficult situation for her. However, claims of personal injury, including damage to health, fall outside the complaints process and can be considered through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law, which will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by an action or lack thereof by the landlord. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding her mental health.
The landlord’s records confirm that the resident first started reporting mice entering her property in March 2021, with further reports made between September 2021 and November 2021. However, there is no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint at the time or actively pursued a response to one. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which can be found on our website, states that ‘we will not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising’. This ensures that both the landlord and the Ombudsman has a reasonable opportunity to consider the matter while it remains live and sufficient evidence is available, to reach an informed conclusion. As a result, the 2021 reports have been mentioned for context only and have not formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment of the complaint.
The resident made consistent monthly reports of mice entering her property between January 2022 and November 2022 and completed the landlord’s complaints process during this period. While there was a gap in reports after November 2022, this does not indicate the issue was resolved, particularly as the resident resumed reporting the problem in July 2023 and subsequently raised a further formal complaint. Given the ongoing and persistent nature of the issue, it is reasonable to consider the resident’s reports from January 2022 onwards. This ensures a fair and comprehensive assessment of the landlord’s response to a reoccurring problem. Furthermore, since the substantive issue remained unresolved at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023, we have extended the scope of this investigation beyond that response to ensure a thorough review.

Legal obligations and policy framework

The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will take necessary action to ensure properties and communal spaces are free from mice, including proofing properties where possible and reasonable. For ongoing issues with infestations or where there are indications of an underlying issue, the landlord will undertake a property/block inspection and act on recommendations.
The policy does not include target timeframes for responding to pest reports. However, industry best practice emphasises the importance of prompt action and effective communication to prevent pest infestations from escalating and to mitigate potential health risks. The policy goes on to state that if personal possessions or furniture are damaged due to a pest issue, it is the resident’s responsibility to repair or replace them.
The landlord operates a choice–based letting scheme, allowing residents to apply for a housing transfer under the following conditions:
1. the household has a specific need, such as overcrowding or medical reasons
2. the resident has no rent arrears
3. the resident’s property is in good condition
4. the resident has not engaged in anti-social behaviour
5. the resident has not broken their tenancy agreement
If an application is accepted, the local authority will give the application a banding, which determines the resident’s priority level. The resident can then bid for properties through the landlord’s choice-based letting scheme.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may award discretionary compensation of up to £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its actions or inaction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation in the property

It is not disputed that the resident has experienced a mouse infestation in the property for a significant period. We acknowledge that this has been extremely distressing, likely disrupting daily life and impacting the resident’s sense of security in her home. The resident’s concerns are understandable, as dealing with such issues can be challenging and stressful.
The evidence shows that between January 2022 and March 2022, the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s reports of mice in the property and adopted a trial-and-error approach, implementing various measures, assessing their effectiveness, and making adjustments when initial attempts did not fully resolve the issue. This included engaging a specialist contractor to bait and proof holes in the resident’s property, inspecting and proofing external holes at the walkway to the building, and inspecting neighbouring properties. These steps were in line with the landlord’s pest control policy.
The landlord’s records indicate that in April 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the initial pest control contractor. At the same time, the contractor appeared to consider that no further action could be taken, as they had not detected any rodent activity during their last visit. Given these conflicting accounts, it was appropriate for the landlord to promptly engage an alternative contractor to ensure the pest issue continued to be addressed. This demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to investigating the resident’s concerns, rather than relying solely on the contractor’s assessment.
The evidence shows that between May 2022 and July 2022, the newly appointed pest control contractor attended the resident’s property regularly and confirmed rodent activity under the kitchen base units and in the water tank cupboard located in the kitchen. The contractor appropriately recommended thorough proofing of these areas, and by the end of July 2022, proofing of the kitchen base units had been completed. Following this, the resident’s reports of activity stopped. This suggested that the landlord was gaining better control over the situation and that its adjusted approach was producing positive results in addressing the infestation.
Still, it was reasonable that through its complaints process on 26 August 2022, the landlord awarded the resident £942.98 in compensation, equivalent to a 5% rent reduction for the period it had been aware of the issue. We have not been provided with information outlining the exact dates this compensation covered, making it difficult to assess whether the amount was fully proportionate to the impact on the resident. However, the landlord’s actions up to this point demonstrated that it was actively taking steps to address the infestation and had not failed in its service delivery. Therefore, issuing compensation at this stage was a reasonable and proactive gesture, acknowledging the disruption caused while it continued working towards a resolution.
Between September 2022 and November 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident reported a recurrence of mouse activity in her property. The records indicate that the contractor resumed inspections, baiting, and trapping, and once again identified that the water tank cupboard was an entry point that required proofing. There is no evidence that the landlord took meaningful action in response to this recommendation or that it clearly communicated with the resident about the next steps during this period. As a result, the resident said she wanted to move and stated that she felt the contractor was simply filling holes and placing traps without making any real progress. While we acknowledge that pest infestations often require multiple treatments and pest control contractors may carry out similar actions repeatedly, this can understandably lead to frustration and a perception that nothing is improving. It is therefore essential that landlords actively manage residents’ expectations by providing clear updates on the actions being taken, the reasons behind repeated treatments, and the anticipated next steps. The landlord’s lack of communication during this period likely left the resident feeling as though her concerns were not being taken seriously, increasing frustration and uncertainty at a time when reassurance and transparency were most needed.
After this, there were no further reports from the resident of rodent activity until 28 July 2023, with issues continuing until December 2023. Up until this stage, the landlord had consistently arranged for the pest control contractor to attend the resident’s property within a few days, which was a positive aspect of its handling of the issue. However, between July 2023 and December 2023, despite the resident continuing to report ongoing activity through calls and emails, the contractor’s visits had shifted to a monthly schedule. This created inconsistency in the landlord’s response times, contrasting with its previously prompt approach. While the landlord’s pest control policy does not specify response times, its earlier conduct and industry best practices, which encourages quick intervention, set a reasonable expectation for a timelier response, especially given that the infestation was a longstanding issue. Understandably, the resident escalated her concerns to her local MP, expressing that she was at breaking point. To improve clarity, the landlord may wish to consider including response times within its pest control policy, ensuring greater consistency in response times and a more a structured approach to pest control interventions. A recommendation has been included at the end of this report to address this issue.
Additionally, between July 2023 and December 2023, the landlord did not appear to have a clear structured approach to permanently resolving the infestation in the resident’s property. While continued baiting and trapping were necessary, the persistent nature of the issue suggested that a more targeted plan may have been beneficial. Had the landlord developed a coherent plan outlining the next steps, it may have identified sooner that the water tank cupboard in the kitchen was a key entry point for the mice. The pest control contractor repeatedly recommended proofing this area, yet the landlord’s records confirm that the water tank was not removed, and the area was not proofed until 18 November 2024, which was 29 months after the issue was first identified. It was only in July 2024, that the landlord discovered the job had been sent to the wrong department and had not been followed up. While there were a few instances where the resident’s availability may have contributed to some of the delay, this alone does not account for the extended timeframe. A more proactive approach to tracking and acting on key recommendations could have helped to prevent such a lengthy delay, minimising the prolonged impact on the resident and her children.
The landlord was aware that the rodent infestation was also an estate-wide issue. While there is some evidence that external proofing works and inspections of neighbouring properties were carried out in March 2022, there is no indication of ongoing monitoring or further estate-wide action beyond this period. The landlord informed the resident that it had a long-term plan in place, regularly monitored communal areas, and cleaned the grounds regularly. However, we have not seen evidence to verify these claims. We are not suggesting that these actions did not take place, but in the absence of supporting evidence, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord implemented a long-term, consistent or proactive approach to managing the wider infestation, which may have contributed to the persistence of the issue. The landlord must develop a comprehensive estate-wide pest control strategy. An order has been included at the end of this report to address this issue.
The evidence shows that the resident consistently informed the landlord that the ongoing rodent infestation was having a negative impact on her bipolar disorder and that her young children were also distressed by the living conditions. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to recognise that some residents are more affected by certain situations due to vulnerabilities within the household. Therefore, landlords should approach these cases with sensitivity, empathy, and with a commitment to mitigating the impact where possible. The landlord’s records demonstrate acknowledgment of the resident’s mental health condition. It also took responsibility for resolving the pest infestation and apologised to the resident for the ongoing nature of the situation. Furthermore, its decision to award the resident an additional £500 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023, the maximum discretionary amount its compensation policy awarded, demonstrated a continuous effort to show recognition for the distress being caused.
However, as the situation remains unresolved, the landlord may wish to consider additional measures to support the resident and her children. This could include arranging specialist cleaning to remove any potential contamination risks. It could also provide updated guidance and practical advice on further preventative actions the resident can take, while exploring additional tailored support that considers the impact of the prolonged issue on the household’s well-being. A recommendation has been included at the end of this report to reflect this.
Finally, the resident requested replacement of her damaged belongings due to the rodent infestation. While the landlord’s pest control policy states that residents are responsible for replacing items damaged by pests, on this occasion the landlord directed her to submit a claim with its insurance team. This was an appropriate and pragmatic decision given the prolonged nature of the infestation, rather than strictly adhering to its policy, which demonstrated willingness to take a more flexible and fair approach. The landlord’s insurance team informed the resident that she needed to provide receipts or dated photos of the damaged items she was seeking reimbursement for. We acknowledge the resident’s frustration with this request as she had already disposed of some items and did not have receipts of her belongings due to their age. However, the insurance team’s request was a reasonable and standard requirement of the insurance process, as such procedures are in place to verify claims and ensure that compensation is awarded fairly and appropriately. Residents should not be expected to provide receipts for every item, but it is reasonable to ask for some evidence of the ownership and value of the items, such as photographs. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord’s insurance team to award the resident £200 for the replacement of her belongings based on the information it had been provided with. This demonstrated that the landlord had considered the resident’s claim and tried to provide a fair resolution within the limitations of its insurance policy.
Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it took some positive and proactive steps to address the mouse infestation in the resident’s property. However, there were several shortcomings in the overall handling of the matter. A key failing was the delay in addressing a known entry point for the mice. Additionally, while it acknowledged the impact on the resident’s mental health and awarded compensation at various stages, the absence of a clear and structured action plan undermined its efforts to gain control of the situation. Despite the landlord’s interventions, the resident has experienced a mouse infestation in her property for at least 3 years and the situation remains unresolved. Collectively, these failings have led the Ombudsman to determine maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation in the property.
The landlord is ordered to conduct an updated survey of the resident’s property, identifying all entry points, nesting sites, and contributing factors to the ongoing infestation. A report detailing the findings must be shared with the resident. Based on the inspection findings, the landlord is ordered to ensure all identified entry points are properly proofed and sealed within 4 weeks of the date of this report, and it must provide the resident with a clear timeline of any works agreed.
The landlord is ordered to review whether additional structural interventions within the resident’s property are necessary. This should include an assessment of whether refitting the kitchen or other significant remedial works would provide a long-term solution. While the landlord is not obliged to carry out such works, it must demonstrate that all reasonable options have been considered and provide clear justification for its decision to the resident. The landlord is expected to take reasonable action to resolve the ongoing mice infestation.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where there has been a determination of maladministration which has adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that landlords should pay residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. The landlord’s previous awards of compensation were an appropriate remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused up until the time when they were made. However, in view of the delay in addressing a known entry point and the lack of clear plan following conclusion of its complaints process in October 2023, the landlord must pay the resident £400 in additional compensation. This amount reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by these failures and is separate from and in addition to the landlord’s previous compensation payments.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer

The landlord’s records indicate that it first considered the resident’s request for a housing transfer on 29 March 2022. At the time, it informed the resident that she was not eligible to move until all other options to address the rodent infestation had been explored. Given the resident’s circumstances did not meet the conditions of the landlord’s housing transfer procedure, and the landlord was still actively proofing and baiting both her property and the external areas of the building, it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise resolving the infestation before considering a housing transfer. However, it remained important for the landlord to keep the resident informed about her options and any changes to her eligibility if the situation persisted.
Therefore, it was reasonable that in April 2023, when the infestation had still not been fully resolved, the landlord agreed to accept the resident’s housing transfer application, allowing her to access its choice–based letting system. This demonstrated that the landlord had reevaluated her circumstances and was willing to assist her in finding a resolution through multiple avenues.
The resident expressed concerns that due to her banding, she would likely face a long wait before securing another property. While we acknowledge the resident’s frustration, the landlord’s records confirm that it correctly explained that banding decisions were made by the local authority, and that medical documentation would be required to justify any adjustments. The landlord cannot be held responsible for this process, as it is outside its control. If the resident is unhappy with the banding, she was awarded she has the option to complain about this to the local authority.
Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer was in line with its housing transfer procedure. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and frustration caused by the ongoing pest infestation, the landlord’s response was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £400 in additional compensation. This amount is separate from and in addition to the landlord’s previous compensation payments.
The landlord must, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Engage a qualified pest control specialist to conduct a full independent assessment of communal areas and external entry points across the estate. The assessment must include recommendations on whether further intensive interventions, such as temporary decanting and full building exterminations, may be required to fully resolve the issue. While the landlord is not obligated to carry out a full building extermination, it should consider this and if it decides this is not necessary, it must explain why it is not necessary and what steps it will take instead to resolve the infestation.
2. Develop a comprehensive estate-wide pest control strategy that includes:
  1. a structured monitoring and inspection programme detailing how and when communal areas and affected properties will be regularly checked for pest activity
  2. a clear schedule for preventative and responsive pest control measures specifying the frequency of inspections, proofing works, and pest control treatments
  3. a resident communication plan setting out how and when residents will be informed of pest control actions, including updates on ongoing works and advice on preventative measures
3. Conduct an updated survey of the resident’s property, identifying all entry points, nesting sites, and contributing factors to the ongoing infestation. A report detailing the findings must be shared with the resident. Based on the inspection findings, the landlord is ordered to ensure all identified entry points are properly proofed and sealed, and it must provide the resident with a clear timeline of any works agreed.
4. Review whether additional structural interventions within the resident’s property are necessary. This should include an assessment of whether refitting the kitchen or other significant remedial works would provide a long-term solution. While the landlord is not obligated to carry out such works, it must demonstrate that all reasonable options have been considered and provide clear justification for its decision to the resident.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider including response times in its pest control policy. This would help manage resident expectations, ensure greater consistency in response times, and reinforce a structured approach to pest control interventions.
The landlord should consider additional measures to support the resident and her children. This could include arranging specialist cleaning to remove any potential contamination risks. It could also provide updated guidance and practical advice on further preventative actions the resident can take, while exploring additional tailored support that considers the impact of the prolonged issue on the household’s well-being.