Sapphire Independent Housing Limited (202317469)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317469

Sapphire Independent Housing Limited

3 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a fly and maggot infestation in the property and the related temporary move.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began on 20 July 2020. The landlord is aware that the resident has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
The resident first reported maggots in the ground floor communal area of the block on 5 June 2023. On 12 June 2023 the landlord identified the source of the flies and maggots to be coming from a neighbouring flat. The landlord arranged for a contractor to clean and sanitise the affected flat and area on the same day.
The resident was temporarily moved into a hotel on 14 June 2023. The landlord initially arranged the stay to last for 2 nights, however the resident remained in the hotel until 22 August 2023, at which point he was temporarily moved into a flat that had become available in his block.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2023. He said:
1. a pest control contractor was supposed to attend on 9 June 2023 but did not attend until 14 June 2023, by which point more maggots had appeared.
2. he was extremely disappointed with the landlord’s handling of the fly and maggot infestation.
3. the infestation had caused him a significant amount of stress and trauma.
4. he had to throw away many personal belongings as they felt contaminated.
5. the landlord had not offered him any compensation, and he would like to be compensated for the distress caused.
The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge his complaint on 26 June 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It said:
1. it recognised the significant impact of the issue on the resident and was sorry for any distress and inconvenience caused.
2. it had found no service failure in its initial response to the resident’s reports of a fly and maggot infestation as it had responded in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
3. it had offered goodwill gestures to the resident throughout the duration of the issue, including an offer to replace several furniture items and the purchase of new items of clothing for the resident.
4. it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint and was offering £240 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £10 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in its complaint handling.
  2. £25 for distress and inconvenience caused by a phone call to the resident to discuss the complaint on 30 June 2023, following which the resident complained that the landlord was “putting words in his mouth.”
  3. £50 for distress and inconvenience resulting from a policy gap it had identified around communal cleaning.
  4. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by policy gaps it had identified around decants and rehousing.
  5. £10 for distress caused by the landlord referring to the infestation as “rubbish” when the issue was first reported.
  6. £25 for distress and inconvenience caused by miscommunication around a pest control appointment.
  7. £10 for its failure to update the resident about ongoing financial support in a timely manner.
  8. £10 for distress caused by dead flies remaining on the resident’s dustpan following an inspection on 10 July 2023.
5. it was also offering a 25% rebate in rent due from 12 June 2023 until the resident returned home.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint on 22 July 2023 as he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord provided acknowledgement of his request on 28 July 2023.
The landlord took several measures to remedy the issue between June and October 2023, including arranging a pest control treatment visit on 1 August 2023, several deep cleans of the resident’s property, and an inspection which identified a schedule of remedial repair works at the property. During this time, the resident emailed the landlord on multiple occasions expressing distress about the infestation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. It said:
1. it had inspected the resident’s flat on 4 October 2023 and identified a schedule of works. It would like to agree a date with the resident for work to commence.
2. it agreed there had been uncertainty over when the infestation would be resolved but did not agree that there had not been a clear action plan around when the resident would return to his property.
3. it was offering a total compensation amount of £1,412.20 (actually £1,362.20), comprised of:
  1. £750 in replacement of the £240 offered at stage 1.
  2. an offer to pay up to £200 towards a dry cleaning or washing service for the resident’s clothing.
  3. an offer of a 25% rebate in the rent that had been paid between 12 June 2023 and 22 August 2023, totalling £412.20.
4. it had purchased a bed, sofa, and several white goods for the resident’s temporary flat.
5. the resident had the option to remain at his temporary flat permanently if he would prefer.

Post ICP events

The landlord arranged further remedial works to the resident’s flat following the stage 2 outcome. These included several deep cleans, repairs, and pest control visits. The landlord and the resident continued to find dead flies in the flat until December 2023, at which point the resident said he would not move back into his home until an Environmental Health inspection confirmed it was habitable.
An Environmental Health Officer completed a joint inspection of the resident’s flat with the landlord on 29 January 2024. The inspection found a number of dead flies still in the bedroom, so the landlord arranged a further deep clean of the property. The property was found to be of an acceptable standard after a post-inspection on 27 February 2024.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 13 December 2023. At the time, he said the pest infestation was ongoing, and he wanted the landlord to resolve the issue and compensate him for the distress caused. In recent correspondence, the resident has confirmed that the pest issue is resolved but remedial work to his property has not been completed. He would like compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, and loss of belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his move from his temporary accommodation back into his flat and a subsequent court case.
These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

A fly and maggot infestation in the property

Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it aims to avoid or minimise potential health hazards. A pest infestation is a potential hazard that falls within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord does not have a policy that sets out its approach to dealing with pests and vermin. In its complaint responses, the landlord self-assesses its response times against its repairs and maintenance policy. The policy says that the landlord will:
1. complete or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days.
3. complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord does not have policy around temporary moves, however section 23 of the tenancy agreement says that:
1. where temporary vacation of the premises is required, the landlord will provide temporary accommodation for the resident for as long as is necessary for the landlord to complete any major works.
2. once any relevant works are complete, the resident must vacate the temporary accommodation and reoccupy the premises.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would typically classify a pest control issue under the “urgent” category in its repairs policy, giving it 7 calendar days to respond to the issue once it had been reported.
The landlord was put on notice about a fly and maggot infestation in the communal area of the resident’s building on 5 June 2023. The landlord arranged for the area to be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected as it thought the issue may be coming from mess and rubbish. The clean took place on 6 June 2023, 1 day after the initial report. This was a timely and reasonable action.
The resident told the landlord that the maggots had returned to the communal area following the clean on 6 June 2023. The landlord arranged for a further clean of the area to take place on 7 June 2023. The landlord also visited the building on 7 June 2023, which was reasonable given that the initial clean had not resolved the issue.
During the above visit, the landlord noticed maggots on all floors of the building. It knocked on all residents’ doors and made phone call attempts where door knocking was not successful. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt contact with residents at the block through various methods to investigate the source of the infestation.
The landlord arranged a pest control visit on 8 June 2023 after the resident reported that the second clean had not resolved the issue. The visit was booked for 12 June 2023. While waiting for pest control to attend, the landlord sent letters and text messages to all residents at the block asking them to check for flies and maggots in their homes and providing relevant advice. This was reasonable.
The landlord identified that the source of the infestation was a neighbouring flat on 12 June 2023. The landlord arranged for the source flat to be deep cleaned and sanitised on the same day, which was reasonable.
The 7-day delay in the landlord identifying the cause of the infestation was not unreasonable given that the reports were initially just about the ground floor communal area. Following the landlord’s visit on 7 June 2023, during which it identified maggots elsewhere in the building, it took several reasonable steps to investigate the issue. It was because of contact with neighbouring residents that the landlord decided to force entry to the source flat.
The resident told the landlord that the infestation had spread to his home on 12 June 2023. On 13 June 2023 the landlord said it would arrange for a pest control contractor to attend. The contractor attended to treat the resident’s flat the next day. This was timely and reasonable in line with the “urgent” timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord said it arranged for the resident to be temporarily moved into a hotel on 14 June 2023. This was because the resident told the landlord that he could not sleep in his flat due to the infestation. It was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident into a hotel in the first instance given that it did not have any local properties available. The landlord acted quickly in arranging the move on the same day it was made aware of the resident’s concerns, which was reasonable.
The resident’s initial move into a hotel was planned for 2 nights, however the resident remained in the hotel until 22 August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident once a flat became available in his block, however it is unclear why the initial move took significantly longer than planned.
While the circumstances around the length of the temporary move and the lack of a clear plan from the landlord were not appropriate, the landlord did provide reasonable support to the resident throughout his hotel stay. This included:
1. a rent rebate of 25% for the duration of the initial hotel stay.
2. a weekly travel allowance of £40.70 per week.
3. a daily food allowance of £30.
4. having one point of contact regularly check in on the resident’s wellbeing.
The landlord arranged to meet the resident at his flat for an inspection on 16 June 2023. The landlord recorded that there was a “large number” of dead flies in the property and the resident was very distressed. The landlord cleared all visible dead flies from the property during the visit as a result, which was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was empathetic to the impact of the infestation on the resident.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on the same day as the joint inspection. As part of his complaint, he said that a pest control contractor was supposed to have attended on 9 June 2023 but did not attend until 14 June 2023. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this is the case as there is no evidence to confirm when the initial pest control appointment was booked for. This is a record keeping failure.
In his complaint, the resident also said that he had thrown away many personal belongings due to fear of contamination from the infestation. In its stage 1 response, the landlord highlighted that it had offered to replace the resident’s mattress, rug and sofa as a goodwill gesture, but the resident had declined this. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to replace the items as a goodwill gesture, however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss contents insurance or instruct him on how to make a claim through its own insurance, if he was unhappy with the offer it had made.
The landlord failed to provide a clear plan for the resident to return home until an email dated 17 July 2023, in which the landlord set out that the resident should be able to return home on 26 July 2023. Delays in arranging pest control visits then meant that a new plan had to be sent to the resident on 9 August 2023. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to complete a full heat and chemical treatment of the resident’s flat on 1 August 2023. It is unclear at which point the landlord became aware that the infestation had returned after the first treatment on 14 June 2023. However, at this point, the resident had been living away from his home for almost 2 months. This was an unreasonable length of time for the infestation to be unresolved for, without the landlord keeping the resident informed of any progress in the property.
On 31 August 2023 the resident’s support worker emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident and asked for all of his “hard” household items to be professionally cleaned. The landlord agreed to this, which was reasonable and showed empathy for the resident’s contamination concerns.
The landlord completed a joint inspection of the resident’s flat with the resident and his support worker on 3 October 2023. The landlord found that:
1. there were dead flies remaining in the flat, but no live pests present.
2. the kitchen units were in a good condition and just required a deep clean.
3. multiple repairs were needed, which were drafted into a schedule of works.
4. the resident’s clothes should be checked and possibly dry cleaned.
On 10 October 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm that the remedial works to his flat could start on 11 October 2023. The resident asked for more time to make arrangements with his work. There is no evidence to confirm when the repair works took place following this. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine whether they were completed within a reasonable time. This is a record keeping failure.
Flies were discovered in the resident’s flat on 3 occasions between November and December 2023. At this point, it had been 6 months since the landlord was put on notice about the infestation. It is unclear why the issue took so long to resolve, and why it took until January 2024 for an Environmental Health inspection to be arranged. Doing so earlier would have allowed the landlord to create a clear plan to treat the issue and satisfy itself of its obligations under the HHSRS.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a fly and maggot infestation in the property amount to maladministration. This is because:
1. The infestation was ongoing for an unreasonable length of time, without clear explanations or updates from the landlord as to why this was the case. This caused significant distress to the resident.
2. there were record keeping failures at several stages throughout the duration of the issue. This impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate all aspects of the complaint.
3. the landlord failed to clearly communicate with the resident on several occasions about his temporary move and a plan for his return to his home. This caused distress, inconvenience, and time and effort to the resident and was not remedied in the landlord’s complaint responses.
The impact of the failings identified on the resident have been significant. He has reported that the infestation was traumatic for both him and his children, as the temporary move meant that they could not spend time together as they previously had. The resident lost a number of belongings due to contamination fears, which caused him distress and inconvenience.
The landlord made a reasonable attempt to put things right at the point of stage 2. At the time, the £1,317.20 compensation offered (inclusive of the rent rebate and dry-cleaning offer, not inclusive of the £45 offered for complaint handling) was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the infestation.
However, as the issue remained unresolved for 4 months after the stage 2 response was issued, we have ordered an apology and an additional £200 compensation to reflect the continued delays. The total compensation payable is therefore £1,517.20. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The associated complaint

In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:
1. have a person or team assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling.
2. do not have a process with more than 2 stages.
3. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
4. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
5. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s Feedback and Complaint Policy at the time of the complaint set out that the landlord:
1. had a 3-stage complaint process, with stage 2 being a review by a service manager and stage 3 being an overview undertaken by someone not previously involved in the process.
2. aimed to acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
3. aimed to respond to all stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days, or 20 working days if an extension had been agreed.
4. aimed to respond to all stage 3 complaints within 15 working days, or 20 working days if an extension had been agreed.
5. generally had a resident’s appointed officer or support worker handle a complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023, which was 25 working days after the resident made his complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that its response fell 5 days outside of the 20-working day period for extensions stated in its policy. However, it failed to inform the resident that an extension was needed until he requested an update on 19 July 2023. This was inappropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023, which was 57 working days after the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. This was significantly outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and was not appropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £10 for the delay in providing its stage 1 response, and a further £10 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. Given the length of the delays, the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the inconvenience caused to the resident, who contacted this Service for assistance in September 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident’s support worker on 6 September 2023 and said it would like the resident to confirm the outcome he was seeking from his stage 2 complaint. It is unclear why it took the landlord over 1 month from the point of escalation to ask this. The landlord failed to provide an explanation as to why the investigation was being delayed. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses were confusing at times. In correspondence with the resident in July and August 2023, it responded to some of the issues raised, asked questions and set out its position on certain issues prior to issuing its formal responses. As such, it was unclear as to whether those were formal responses or just acknowledgements.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to a complaint made by the resident about specific staff members. The landlord failed to address the complaint, citing that it could not identify individual members of staff in its response. The landlord’s response was unclear and confusing to both the resident and this Service. The landlord missed an opportunity to put this aspect of the resident’s complaint right as a result.
The landlord’s Feedback and Complaint policy at the time of the complaint was not compliant with the provisions of the Code. The landlord has since informed the Ombudsman that it has changed to a 2-stage complaints process in line with the Code. The landlord provided evidence of its policy change to the Ombudsman following an order made in case 202103631. As such, no new order has been made for the landlord to review its complaints policy.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is due to:
1. the delays in the landlord providing both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, which were not agreed with the resident as extensions.
2. the landlord’s failure to appropriately compensate the resident for the inconvenience, time and effort caused to him by its complaint handling delays.
3. the landlord’s complaint responses being at times confusing and unclear, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord proposed increasing the £240 total compensation offered at stage 1 to £750 at stage 2. It said this was in consideration of service failures identified at stage 2 around the delay in finding the source of the infestation, and unsatisfactory removal of the resident’s furniture on 10 August 2023. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the amount apportioned to complaint handling failures was £45 (£35 offered for complaint handling at stage 1 plus the additional £10 for the delays at stage 2).
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, a fair amount of compensation for the failures identified in this report is £250. The landlord may deduct the £45 it has already offered if this has been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly and maggot infestation in the property and the related temporary move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £450 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £200 for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly and maggot infestation and the related temporary move.
  2. £250 for the failures in its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £45 it has already offered if this has been paid.
3. reoffer the compensation of £1,312.20 to the resident for its handling of the fly and maggot infestation and the related temporary move, if this has not already been paid.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the loss of his belongings, including how he can make a claim through any insurance, if required.