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

Stonewater Limited (202318414)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318414

Stonewater Limited

5 March 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 squirrel infestation.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition.
  2. The resident reported a squirrel infestation in the attic of her property on 11 October 2022. The landlord attended on 26 October 2022 and laid bait. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2023 and reported the issue with squirrels was ongoing. She said it had laid bait and taken away 1 dead squirrel but the issue was not resolved. She was “very distressed” by the noise from the squirrels.
  3. The landlord attended on 22 February 2023 and identified the holes in the facia board and roof were allowing squirrels in. It completed works to block the holes on 23 June 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023 to report the squirrel issue was not resolved and she was unhappy with its handling of the matter. She asked it to open a complaint.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised that it had not reattended to remove the squirrels after it did works to block the holes in the roof in June 2023. It said it had rebooked its pest control team to attend lay bait, and remove the squirrels. It offered the resident £450 in compensation. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 25 August 2023.
  6. The landlord completed pest control visits on 8 and 12 September 2023. It identified more points of entry on the roof.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 22 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it was “deeply sorry” for its handling of the matter. It acknowledged the delay between identifying the roofing works in June 2023 and their completion in June 2023. It apologised for its poor communication when she reported the issue again and said it would carry out further roofing repairs on 29 September 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £750.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord attended to inspect the roof on 29 September 2023 it identified various holes that needed blocking. According to the landlord’s records the works were fully completed on 13 November 2023.
  2. The resident contacted us on 14 December 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She was unhappy that the roofing works were not completed until November 2023, and the landlord had still not replaced the insulation in the attic.
  3. The landlord replaced the insulation in the attic on 10 January 2024.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 May 2024. It apologised for the further delay in completing the works and offered an additional £475 in compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a squirrel infestation

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete repairs to blockholes and access points that pests/vermin are entering through. The policy does not give a timeframe in which the landlord aims to complete routine repairs.
  2. The landlord’s pest management policy states it will arrange for the removal of squirrels in all property types. Its policy states that it will attend within 7 calendar days when a report of pests does not pose an immediate risk to health and safety.
  3. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the squirrel infestation had impacted on her mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  4. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response in September 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.
  6. The landlord was on notice about the squirrel infestation from 11 October 2022. The records show it did not attend until 26 October 2022, 15 days later. This was outside of the 7 day timeframe in its pest management policy and a failing in its handling of the matter. This inconvenienced the resident. She was evidently distressed about the squirrel issue, its failure to adhere to its policy timeframe may have increased that distress.
  7. After it laid bait in October 2022 we have seen no evidence that shows it sought to investigate where the squirrels were getting in to the property. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced its failure to investigate the root cause of the issue. Its failure to investigate further at the time may have contributed to the overall delay in resolving the matter.
  8. The resident reported the issue was still ongoing on 7 January 2023. The landlord’s records show it did not attend until 22 February 2023 to investigate how the squirrels were getting in. This was an unreasonable delay that was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy. The landlord did not complete the roofing works (identified in its February 2023 inspection) until June 2023, 4 months later. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. The resident described being “very distressed” by the disturbance from the squirrels. Its failure to respond in an appropriate timeframe may have increased the distress she experienced.
  9. The resident reported the issue was still unresolved on 19 July 2023. We have seen no evidence it arranged a pest control visit at that time. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter that inconvenienced the resident. The resident experienced time and trouble of needing to repeatedly report the same issue. The landlord’s failure to respond with the appropriate urgency may have increased the distress she experienced.
  10. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise and offered compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to put things right for the resident. It did acknowledge it did not follow up with a pest control visit after the roofing works in June 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge the delay in completing those roofing works. Nor did it acknowledge its failure to complete pest control visits within its policy timeframe. This was inappropriate and lacked learning. The resident was inconvenienced by a lack of transparency and learning in its complaint response.
  11. The landlord did not complete a further pest control visit until 8 September 2023. This was 2 months after the resident raised concerns as part of her complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy. This evidence supports the conclusion the landlord failed to learn from the outcomes of its earlier handling of the matter. The further delay increased the detriment the resident experienced.
  12. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to assess its handling of the matter in more detail, and acknowledged failings it did not in its stage 1 response. This showed learning and transparency. This went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 complaint response. That the landlord made an increased offer of compensation was appropriate in the circumstances due to the increased delay and failings identified. However, that the matter was outstanding at the time means the compensation it offered did not fully put things right for the resident.
  13. The landlord did not complete the roofing works until November 2024, 4 months after the resident made it aware the previous works had not resolved the issue. It then to not reinstate the attic insulation until January 2024. This was an unreasonable delay that increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  14. We welcome the fact the landlord made a further offer of compensation in May 2024 to reflect the further delay. However, that it did so 4 months after the matter was resolved, and after we had opened an investigation, impacts on the degree to which it offer put things right. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to revisit its offer at the time it resolved the issue.
  15. For the reasons outlined above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance states that orders for over £1,000 are appropriate when there were a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Considering the landlord’s total offer of £1,225 we have not ordered it to pay additional compensation.

Determination

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

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,225 in compensation it offered in recognition of its errors in its handling of the squirrel infestation (if it has not already done so).