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

Stonewater Limited (202312988)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312988

Stonewater Limited

17 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 the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident is elderly. The landlord has no other recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. In August 2022 the resident reported rats to the landlord. It engaged its pest contractor who placed bait and traps. They noted the cause was likely overgrown vegetation in the adjacent grounds of a nearby supermarket. The following month, the resident reported that the rats were in the summerhouse. In early October 2022 the pest contractor noted there was no evidence of rats. The landlord closed the pest control case. 
  3. Some 4 months later, in mid-March 2023, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the lack of action in relation to damage caused by the rats to the patio and summer house. She said she had had a visit at the end of November 2023 but had not heard anything since.
  4. In mid-April 2023 the resident again reported rats to the landlord. The pest contractor attended a few days later and laid bait in the garden. On a follow-up visit the pest contractor found rat runs.
  5. On 10 May 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the delay in treating the rat infestation. She said she was afraid to use the patio and summer house.
  6. On 25 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. It said its pest contractor had successfully treated the rat infestation in October 2022 and the resident had reported no further activity in the garden at that time. It said it understood the problem had returned. The landlord said it would continue to work with its contractors, to bait and monitor this situation. It apologised that its pest contractor did not attend on 18 and 22 May 2023 as agreed. It said that was not acceptable and offered compensation of £100 for that. It said it had asked the contractor to contact the resident to arrange appointments with her within the next 5 working days.
  7. On 1 June 2023 the pest contractor visited the property and found no rat activity. They left monitoring in place.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 7 June 2023. She said she was surprised to learn that the landlord was not responsible for the summer house. She asked when it would relay the patio.
  9. In mid-June 2023 the pest contractor noted the supermarket had started clearing vegetation on their land. They also noted there had been no new rat activity.
  10. On 6 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said the previous inspection had found no rat activity and it had backfilled the rat burrows. It said its pest contractor would make a further check for activity. The landlord apologised that its communication with the resident had been poor. It added it was working hard with its contractors to improve this and had rolled out communication training to every colleague which it was confident would improve its communication with customers. It offered compensation of £100 for that poor communication. (The response also said that it had previously offered the resident £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to Stage 2. That appears to be an error as the compensation previously offered related to 2 missed appointments.)
  11. In March 2024 the resident told the landlord that the pest problem had been fully resolved.
  12. When the resident approached us, she confirmed the rat infestation had been resolved. However, the patio which was rebuilt as part of remedial works after the infestation, was sinking. She said this was a trip hazard and, given she was elderly, was a particular danger to her.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits our consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and us within a reasonable timeframe. As such, this investigation has focussed on events from August 2022 that led to the formal complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation

  1. When the resident reported rats in August 2022 and April 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by engaging its pest contractor. They acted promptly by inspecting and baiting the garden. On both occasions the rat infestation was resolved within 3 visits by the pest contractor. The landlord’s actions were in line with its pest control procedures.
  2. After the landlord closed the first case in October 2022, it asked its building contractor to survey the garden. The evidence shows that the surveyor did not turn up as planned on 15 November 2022 due to staff sickness. The landlord did not tell the resident that the surveyor would not be attending that day and that was a service failing.
  3. We understand that the surveyor visited the property at the end of November 2022 to assess the damage caused by the rats. However, there is no evidence of any remedial works until the summer of 2023 (after a second visit by a surveyor in late Spring 2023). It is not clear why there was delay in carrying out these remedial works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for them once the first pest infestation had been resolved in October 2022. That delay was a service failing.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake work to the patio that had been damaged by the rat infestation. The summerhouse was installed by the resident and was therefore her responsibility to maintain.
  5. The landlord did not communicate with the resident about the infestation in line with its pest control procedures which says that it will call the resident to update them on the progress and advise them on the recommendations, including any remedial work required at regular intervals. In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged this and offered the resident £100 for its poor communication. It also offered £100 for 2 missed appointments in May 2023.
  6. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. The sums offered by the landlord were in line with its compensation policy which allows for discretionary compensation where it had delayed providing a service and had not followed its policies and procedures. They sums were also in line with our remedies guidance which says compensation of £200 is appropriate where there were failures which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact.
  8. However, it is evident that the resident was caused inconvenience and frustration by the missed appointment on 15 November 2022 and for the delay in arranging remedial works after the first surveyor’s visit to the property in late November 2022. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for that impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to us:
    1. A manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £200 for the impact of the additional failings identified in this report relating to the rat infestation.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord inspects the patio for defects within the next 4 weeks. It should then write to the resident promptly setting out what action, if any, it will take to remedy these defects. In doing so the landlord should have regard to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System which gives guidance on protection from accidents including falls. If the landlord decides not to take action, it should give an explanation for that in writing to the resident.