From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Soha Housing Limited (202337405)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337405

Soha Housing Limited

23 April 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 pests and the conduct of its contractor.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy with the landlord began in 2022. One of the resident’s children has a vulnerability that means they require constant care and supervision. This was reflected in the landlord’s records.
  2. In February 2023 the landlord raised a job for its pest control contactor to attend a report of mole hills in the resident’s garden. The contractor attended twice in May 2023.
  3. On 26 July 2023 the resident’s complaint to the landlord included her unhappiness with the continuing mole issues. The landlord completed an inspection of her property a few days later.
  4. On 9 August 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said that its pest control contactor would contact her shortly to agree an appointment to visit.
  5. During August 2023, the landlord told the resident that its contractor had attended in May 2023. The resident expressed her unhappiness that she had been unaware of this. She stated her concerns that there could still be traps in her garden. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the mole hill element of the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
  6. On 12 September 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It accepted that there had been some confusion regarding mole traps and that it could not evidence its contractor’s communications or actions. It said that it had found no failings by its own staff. It detailed its learning.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. She expressed her unhappiness with the outcome and quality of its stage 2 investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service can investigate complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident’s July 2023 complaint to the landlord raised a range of issues that it responded to at stage 1 of its process. Her concerns associated with her reports of mole hills were the only elements of her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and exhaust the landlord’s process. This assessment is therefore focused on those elements of the resident’s complaint.

Garden pests and contractor conduct

  1. The landlord’s ‘contract service standards’ states that, upon receipt of a job, the contractor “will confirm or make access arrangements with tenants prior to attending”. It further states that, where delays arise, the contractor must explain the reason to the resident and landlord.
  2. On 27 February 2023, the evidence showed that the landlord asked its pest control contractor to call the resident to arrange a visit regarding mole hills in her garden. The repair policy that it provided to us did not include timeframes for the completion of works. However, the job stated that it had a target of 6 March 2023.
  3. However, the evidence we have seen shows that the that the contractor did not attend the resident’s property until 22 and 30 May 2023. In addition to failing to respond to the resident’s report in a timely manner, the landlord has also failed to demonstrate that she was contacted in line with its service standard.
  4. On 10 August 2023 the landlord’s contact with the resident referred to its contractor’s attendances in May 2023. The resident told it that this was the first she had heard about this and stated her unhappiness that her back garden had been accessed without her being aware. She queried what treatments had been done and expressed her safety concerns for her vulnerable child.
  5. Over the following days, the resident continued to express these concerns to the landlord and asked that it urgently let her know the location of any traps in her garden. The landlord’s internal emails expressed the difficulties it was having establishing what had occurred and what contact, if any, its contractor had made with the resident. On 16 August 2023 it told her that its contractor had laid traps in her garden on 22 May and removed them on 30 May 2023.
  6. On 12 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that no traps were laid during either of its contractor’s May 2023 visits. This is consistent with the job records we have seen. It acknowledged that there had been “an element of confusion” with its previous advice to the contrary. It said that it could “only go on the contractor’s word” that it had called her to arrange its visits. It said that the matter had been “complicated by the contractor’s inability to remember definitively what happened”. It stated its learning but concluded that it could not “identify anything that could have been done better on the part of (its own) staff”.
  7. It is expected that landlords will have effective processes to monitor the performance of their contractors, including appropriate record keeping. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it had any of this in place. It is of concern that it further failed to recognise this during its complaint investigation. It has also failed to demonstrate that it considered the household’s vulnerabilities.
  8. The landlord did not offer the resident any form of apology or redress. It is unclear whether this was due to its apparent separation of its own responsibilities from its contractor’s. In either case, its lack of acknowledgement of the time, trouble, and distress caused to her by its service failings was unreasonable.
  9. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation for her time, trouble, and distress. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range where there “was a failure which adversely affected the resident”, which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right.
  10. After the resident’s complaint concluded, the landlord completed a tenant satisfaction consultation of its wholly contractor based repairs service. As a result, it is in the process of launching its new inhouse service. As such, we have not made orders regarding its contractor performance management or record keeping. However, a recommendation has been made to incorporate the findings of this report into the monitoring of its new service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests and the conduct of its contractor.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pays the resident £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the identified failings.
    3. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord incorporate the findings of this report into the implementation and monitoring of its new repair service.