Home Group Limited (202221234)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221234

Home Group Limited

21 August 2023

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a rodent infestation.
The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two-bedroom house. The tenancy is a six-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy. It is unknown when the tenancy began. The landlord has advised this service that it commenced on 29 October 2018, but records show that reports were made by the resident about an infestation in 2016.
The landlord advised this Service that the resident had no known vulnerabilities, but evidence provided shows that the landlord was made aware during the complaint process that the resident has lupus and that she was pregnant.
On 6 June 2016, the repair logs show that the resident emailed the landlord regarding pest control. The landlord advised the resident that it would not cover this and advised her to speak to with the local authority or a private contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord on Sunday 8 December 2019 to advise that there were rats in her kitchen. She was advised that it would not be dealt with as an out of hours emergency and the resident was advised to call back the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 January 2020 stating that the rodent issue had been resolved but holes in an outhouse needed to be fixed to prevent the rodents returning. Repair records show that the landlord completed the works on 30 January 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2020 to advise that she was dissatisfied as she had paid for pest control treatment herself, but the landlord had treated a neighbour’s property. The landlord advised that pest control was a tenant’s responsibility, and it could not discuss another customer’s account. On the same day, the landlord’s repair records stated that it required a report “on all lofts in all properties and bating”. A job was logged on 24 March 2020 to close off gaps in the loft space and roof following a pest control operative carrying out treatment in the loft space.
On 5 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and said she was “not happy about the rat issue”. She asked if she could be moved and advised she would not be paying her rent. The landlord responded on 7 August 2020 that its contractor was baiting the estate due to a rat infestation, but it would not be treating individual properties.
On 18 August 2020 repair records show that the landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to email its contractor about decking at the property. The notes did not explain what action the landlord was taking and what the issue was in respect of the decking.
On 17 November 2021 repair records show that the resident called the landlord to advise that a pest control operative carried out treatment of the loft space and discovered visible gaps to the edge of the loft space and roof the previous year, but no one had attended.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 November 2021. She said:
1. She was still experiencing rats in the property. She had reported all the repairs regarding holes in the loft and under the sink, but no works had been completed. She said repairs had been raised and closed but no works done.
2. A surveyor attended some time ago and advised that he would get works raised but nothing had happened.
3. She said the rat infestation was in both of her neighbours’ properties. A friend of hers had put rat traps and poison down but she now had rat urine coming through the ceiling from the loft.
4. Her neighbour had had their loft repaired and insulated and pest control had put a trap down in her neighbour’s garden. The neighbour was accusing her and another neighbour of being the cause of the problem.
5. She could not use her garden as the decking was slippery and there were rats.
The landlord tried to call the resident in response, but was unable to get through so left a voicemail.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord visited the resident to inspect the roof. It fixed a big hole but reported there were lots of small holes. It confirmed that pest control had attended and there were no rats present. The notes stated the resident was disabled and would like an inspection carried out before the roof was fixed. The resident said that if she was unable to answer her phone then to leave a voicemail as she may be at hospital appointments.
A stage one complaint was raised by the resident on 30 November 2021. In summary she said:
1. For a number of years, she had been experiencing a rat infestation.
2. She lived in a house with no communal area and was aware that she needed to deal with the infestation herself.
3. She had been repeatedly told by her own pest control contractor that the problem would re-surface as the roof had numerous access points as well as a hole behind the kitchen cabinet.
4. The landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect and confirmed that it would be able to ‘make good’ the access points. The landlord’s contractor then attended and advised that the job was too big and did not do any works.
5. There was a repeated pattern of contractors attending and not dealing with the issues for the past four years.
6. The surveyor who originally attended had now left the organisation, so she had to report the same issues again as the jobs had not been logged. She was worried that the jobs would be closed again without resolution as they had been in the past.
On 8 December 2021, the local authority contacted the landlord requesting a call back from its housing management team in respect of the rat issues in the area. It is unknown whether the landlord returned the call, or what was discussed if it did.
On 4 January 2022, the landlord repaired a hole in the kitchen skirting board.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage one complaint on 7 January 2022.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s pest control contractor visited the resident’s and other properties. It said:
1. All three properties were affected. It had completed an ‘unblock’ and survey to the drains linked to all three properties.
2. It had noted that bating stations had been laid by a previous contractor, but a resident advised that these had not been attended to.
3. Other residents in other blocks were complaining about rat issues internally.
4. It recommended the landlord cleaned all overgrown areas, trimmed bushes, and cleared rubbish, completion of a three-part external riddance programme for six to eight weeks, and the installation of multiple rat interceptors as well as drain interceptors.
On 29 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked what stage her complaint was at, and when work would be started and completed.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord responded that:
1. It was in the process of getting a quote for pest control to attend the block to eradicate the infestation issues.
2. Once the infestation was remedied it would attend the property to fix the damage to the insulation and block any holes that had been made to gain access or exit the property.
3. As soon as the works were scheduled it would contact the resident to advise.
On 15 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said:
1. Her complaint was submitted in November/December.
2. The rats were still in her loft.
3. She was pleased that someone would be attending to fill in the holes, but no pest control had been put in place yet. It had been left so long the rats were back which would mean that the contractor would not fill the holes and if it did then she would be left with dead rats in her walls again.
4. She attached a video of the rat activity which occurred most nights and said her daughter was unable to sleep as she was terrified, and it was affecting her daughter’s mental health.
5. She said this was also personally causing her severe stress and was affecting her health.
On the same day, the landlord advised that it would inform the relevant team that she wished to move to a stage two complaint.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 18 February 2022 to block holes in the property. It was unable to complete the work as it reported back that there were signs of rat activity.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 26 February 2022. It confirmed what action it had already taken, as detailed above, and that at the last visit it was unable to do the works due to the rat activity in the loft space. It reiterated that it was the resident’s responsibility to arrange pest control for her home and that it would address the surrounding areas. It also confirmed that the resident had already requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two and that it had arranged for a review under its stage two process. It advised the resident that she would be contacted in respect of her stage two complaint within five weeks.
A request to escalate the complaint was sent on 8 March 2022. It said that the resident felt that the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously and she wanted the landlord to carry out a rat treatment in her home. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to pay the costs of pest control in her home, fill in all the holes in the loft and offer compensation.
On 9 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update in respect of her complaint. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that she should be contacted within the next five weeks as there was currently a back log of complaints.
On 14 March 2022, the landlord’s pest control contractor attended the estate. It said that there was rodent activity behind a garden fence. It had inspected all monitoring points and baited with fresh bait.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord sent a pest control contractor to visit the resident to complete a survey and provide a quote. The report said:
1. It confirmed that there was an infestation of brown rats, and that the infestation was internal.
2. The insulation in the loft had been contaminated by rodent droppings and urine and there was a risk of dead carcases within the insulation.
3. The insulation required removal and disposing of correctly. The area then required disinfecting using special biocide. The customer would then need to re-arrange the re insulation of the loft.
4. It recommended a loft clearance of insulation and rat droppings to create a safe environment, and a four-part rat riddance to be carried out to ensure there was no activity present within the loft.
On 19 April 2022, the resident emailed again to chase a response to her complaint. On 3 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that her complaint had not been allocated yet due to high volumes, but it would be logged as soon as possible.
On 4 May 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she would not pay her rent as the issues raised in her stage two complaint were ongoing and no works had been completed. She said she had holes in her loft and kitchen cupboards. She had had rats and there were rat urine stains on her ceilings. The repairs were showing as completed even though they had not been. She asked if someone could look into the issues for her.
On 28 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident thanking her for her patience in respect of the repairs. It confirmed it would contact her regularly to update. It was prioritising emergency and safety related work and some repairs that were not emergencies would take up to 12 weeks to complete.
On 31 May 2022, the resident called the landlord to chase a response to her stage two complaint. On 10 June 2022, the landlord logged the resident’s stage two complaint and sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident apologising for the delay.
The resident responded on the same day. She said:
1. The backboards in her kitchen cupboard had been pushed out because of the rats in them. She reported this three to four years ago and this had still not been repaired.
2. She had reported repairs then when calling back a few months later, the repairs had disappeared from the system, so she had to report them again.
3. She has been told that there had been no access on occasions, but she was disabled and did not work so was normally at home.
4. Pest control had not returned to check the rat boxes on the estate.
The landlord responded on 14 June 2022. It said in respect of the access points in the property these would be addressed as part of the complaint, and it would look into the delays and appointment issues experienced.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would be obtaining costs for an environmental clean of the loft space and that once this was done it would raise the works to block up the access points in the loft. It had raised the works in relation to the kitchen cupboards and the hole repair which needed to be re-done.
On 23 June 2022, the landlord called the resident to discuss her rent account and the repairs. The resident was unavailable, but the landlord agreed to call her back on 27 June 2022. There are no records to show whether the landlord called the resident back.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that it had instructed a company to clean the loft area and that the company would contact her to book this in. Once this was complete it would ensure any potential access points would be blocked up.
On 8 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It attached a partial stage two decision letter outlining what actions were required. It said:
1. Previously contractors had attended but were unable to undertake works to block the access points in the loft due to signs of rodent activity.
2. It had agreed, although it was usually resident responsibility, to pay for an environmental clean and clearance of the loft which would involve fumigation to eliminate any remaining activity, removal and disposal of rodents and droppings. Once this was completed its contractors would attend to ensure any access points were blocked.
3. It would review the damage to the kitchen cupboards and raise the necessary repairs.
4. It provided the resident with a single point of contact to ensure that all actions were completed so the complaint could be fully concluded.
It asked the resident if she was happy for it to keep the complaint open until the remaining actions were complete. It advised her that if she wished to progress her complaint with this service then it would issue a full stage two outcome but still progress the repairs and actions as set out in its partial stage two response.
On 14 July 2022, the resident responded and requested the complaint be kept open. She said she still was not happy as the work still had not been done apart from the loft check and someone was coming to fumigate but the rat boxes still had not been dealt with and no bait had been put down.
On 18 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update. She said that someone had come to clear the loft early the previous week and she was advised that someone would be back within the next few days, but no one had attended. The landlord responded the next day and advised that it would update her as soon as it could as it was chasing its maintenance team.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had completed the fumigation and the environmental clean of the loft on 18 July 2022 and that it would now raise works to block up the access points as previously identified in the loft and the kitchen.
On 26 July 2022, the resident confirmed that items had been removed from the loft and poison has been put down in the loft and the garden. No one has attended in respect of the kitchen or the holes. The landlord responded the next day to confirm the works had been raised and she should be contacted shortly with a date for the kitchen works and filling of the holes.
On 4 August 2022, the local MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. He requested a timescale for the works to be completed before he escalated it to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in its response.
2. The loft and kitchen access points had now been assigned to a contractor so appointments should be provided very soon.
3. It was currently waiting an update on the wider actions which were agreed at stage one to assist with pest control issues to the wider estate.
4. It understood that her MP had been in contact as she was wishing to escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
5. In order for the Housing Ombudsman to review the complaint she would need to have completed the internal complaints process. It asked the resident to advise whether she would now like a formal stage two outcome letter to be issued and the complaint closed to enable her to get an external review.
The resident responded on the same day and asked for a rough time scale. She wanted to know if it would be days, weeks, or months. She stated that the complaint had been going on since last year and very little had been done so far.
The landlord responded and advised that its contractor should contact her within the next fortnight to book an appointment. It said it might be necessary for an initial visit to be undertaken to assess the extent of the repairs and to order materials and then a follow up attendance to undertake the works. It was currently working to a timeframe of 12 weeks for completion of routine repairs, but it would expect to see her repairs completed within the next four to six weeks although this was just an estimate.
On 18 August 2022, the resident advised the landlord that the pest control contractors had not been coming out regularly to check on the rat boxes within her property or the local area.
On 24 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that its contractor would be attending on 31 August to look at the access points in the loft, skirting boards and to try to repair the kitchen unit back boards.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 31 August 2022 and advised that it had taken off the plinth to the kitchen units and inspected under the units. It found all required areas underneath had been filled with expanding foam and no other works were needed. The loft was assessed, and a number of holes were found which would require a scaffold tower to inspect safely and repair. It was also noted that the loft hatch was broken, and repairs were required to the loft hatch and frame.
The landlord emailed the resident the day after to check its contractor had attended to complete the works. The resident confirmed that they had attended but had not done any works to the kitchen units which needed replacing and holes around the units needed to be filled. The contractors informed her that they needed approval from the landlord to do those works.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 September 2022 to advise that it had contacted its contractor and was waiting for an amended quote for the required works. As soon as it had received this it would proceed with the works and update her. On 21 September 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm an appointment for 29 September 2022. it also advised that it hoped to have an update regarding the insulation shortly.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 29 September 2021 to undertake the works to the roof. It adjusted the roof tiles and lead around the vent, replaced broken guttering and replaced the existing lock on the loft hatch. It also painted and sealed the loft hatch, cleared a blocked drain at the front of the property and cleaned up areas of excess waste. Rodent droppings were found during the works, and it was reported that there were signs of rodent activity.
On 4 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that its contractor had attended to fill a hole in the loft and informed her that there were rat droppings in the loft and the bait had mostly gone. She wanted to know if the loft would be cleaned, and confirmation that the kitchen cupboards were not going to be replaced and when the rat boxes in the garden would be rebaited.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord responded and advised its contractor had confirmed that there were rodent droppings in the loft which was disappointing. It was still trying to find out further information from its contractor regarding the insulation in the loft. In respect of the kitchen cupboards, it had arranged for its surveyor to inspect to agree the works required.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident to review matters and agree a final action plan. The surveyor noted there was no sign of rodent activity within the property. During the visit, the surveyor raised the following works:
1. Kitchen cabinets – hack off the foam recently fitted, supply and fit wire wool and seal three separate locations under and behind the units to stop pests entering the property.
2. Seal up holes behind the sink cabinet where pipes ran.
3. Take out and replace window vents throughout the property.
4. Take up and dispose of decking in the garden which was rotting away.
5. Take up old loft insulation and remove and fit new loft insulation.
6. Stain block and then repaint the kitchen.
The resident was kept updated and the above works were confirmed in writing to the resident on 31 October 2022. The landlord visited the resident on 2 November 2022 to discuss the wider pest control issues. It was unable to gain access but left a calling card.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord attended to seal up the holes behind the sink and repair the kitchen cabinet, and on 23 November 2022, it completed the stain block and painted the kitchen ceiling.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord asked the resident if the decking had been removed yet or the works to the window vents had been completed. It confirmed that the works for the loft insulation had been scheduled for 30 November 2022. The resident responded to confirm that the works had not been completed and that she would not be available on 30 November 2022.
On 7 December 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident. The resident said she was concerned that the wider pest issue was not being treated as rat boxes had not been attended to since the summer and the agreed repairs within her property had still not been completed.
On 9 December 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident again. The resident said:
1. She wished to escalate the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman due to the lack of progress with her complaint.
2. Contractors had attended that day and laid new insulation without removing the old, contaminated insulation.
3. Pest control had attended but there had still been no attendance to the wider estate and works to the decking and window vents remained outstanding.
On the same day, the landlord’s internal correspondence stated that the outstanding issues were:
1. Loft insulation – contractors had attended that day but had not removed old insulation containing rat droppings.
2. The works to remove the decking had still not been completed.
3. The contractor had attended that day in respect of the window vents and was ordering parts.
4. Only one kitchen unit had been attended to and the resident advised that other units still needed attention.
5. A new issue raised that day by the resident was that the water tank in the loft did not have a lid and rodents were able to get into it.
6. There was still a hole in the roof.
7. Pest control had attended the property that day, but outside communal area had still not been attended to.
8. The resident advised that she was 12 weeks pregnant and wanted to move.
On 2 December 2022, the landlord responded to the stage two complaint. In summary it said:
1. It apologised for its poor service. It acknowledged that the resident had to accommodate more appointments than she should have, and it would have expected that works to have been completed in a shorter number of appointments.
2. Its communication had been poor throughout and it had not met its complaint handling timescales.
3. In recognition and apology of the service failure the landlord offered £625 compensation. This was calculated as follows:
  1. £100 for overall delays
  2. £75 for its failure to resolve the matter within the complaints process.
  3. £75 for disruption caused through multiple appointments.
  4. £75 for disruption caused through ongoing rodent issues.
  5. £75 for service failure to complete works as agreed.
  6. £75 for poor communication.
  7. £75 for time and effort spent pursuing matters.
  8. £75 for complaint handling failures.
On 13 December 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied as the issues had been going on since 2021 and were still not resolved. She said she still had holes in the loft and rats in the property. The insulation was still contaminated as it had not been removed. She asked for timeframes for the repairs.
The resident said she had contacted environmental health in December 2021, and it had sent a report to her landlord in respect of the condition of the property and gave it a timeframe to complete works, but the landlord had only completed mould works.
When contractors did attend to the repairs, they were the wrong contractors for the job, or they did not know about the repair. Her daughter had missed days of school because she was kept awake by the rat activity, and she had lupus and the stress had made it worse.
On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up the ongoing issues with the decking and pest control. On 9 March 2023, the landlord visited the resident to check the cold-water storage tank in the loft space. It checked it had a lid insulation, drained it down, cleaned it out and refilled the tank.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord visited the resident to remove the decking in the garden and cleared away all litter and all items of rubbish.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states:
1. The landlord is responsible for maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property.
2. The resident must keep the property (including any garden) free from insect and vermin infestation which includes mice, rats, wasps, cockroaches, and bed bugs. It the resident fails to do so the landlord may deal with it and charge the cost back to the resident.
The landlord’s internal pest’s guidance states that:
1. Pest infestations in the communal areas are its responsibility.
2. The landlord should report pest issues via a general enquiry form. It should then set timescales and next steps with the resident.
3. The removal of pests within the property are the resident’s responsibility.
4. The resident should be advised to contact the local authority’s services for which there may be a charge which the resident will be responsible for.
5. Where pests are in a property’s structure it should log a pre-inspection and set timescales and next steps with the resident and;
6. Advise the customer to contact their local authority or similar service to remove the pests.
7. It will only complete repairs when there is no longer a pest issue.
8. If a resident has more questions, it will advise that this will be discussed at the time of the pre-inspection appointment.
The landlord’s rented home handbook states:
1. It is responsible for kitchen units it has fitted, ceilings, walls, brickwork, render and roofs.
2. It will attend to emergency repairs within six hours to assess and will aim to complete within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 14 days.
3. A resident should contact the landlord if they have a problem with pests. It will ask questions to help work out whose responsibility it is and what the next steps are. If the responsibility is the resident’s, then it will tell the resident who they need to contact. The resident could also contact the local authority who can advise on how to deal with the problem.
4. If the pest infestation is in a communal area or has happened because of structural problems in the home such as gaps or cracks in the wall or floors, then it is the landlord’s responsibility to fix it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

From correspondence this Service has seen, the resident first reported the infestation in 2016. However, there was a gap of several years until the matter was raised again in December 2019. This service would reasonably expect the resident to raise a complaint within six months of an issue occurring. This is set out in paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This service has not considered how the landlord responded to reports of the infestation in 2016; however, consideration has been given to how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports from December 2019.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a rodent infestation.

The landlord’s policy states that a pest infestation is the resident’s responsibility unless the pest infestation is in a communal area or has occurred because of structural problems in the property, such as gaps in the structure of the building.
It is unknown what guidance the resident was given and how the landlord satisfied itself that the infestation was the resident’s responsibility in December 2019. Nevertheless, the resident dealt with the treatment herself and it was appropriate that the landlord attended to fix the holes reported in the outhouse to prevent the infestation reoccurring.
The resident said she had previously reported holes in the loft space and sink but no works had been completed. The repair records provided to this Service do not show any reports in respect of the sink. There is evidence to show reports of holes in the loft space. This evidence indicates that, while records might be incomplete, action was taken by the landlord after December 2019 ( in March, May, then completed in November 2020) to block access points. The records do not provide any explanation as to why the repair took eight months to complete. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage two response states that the repair was completed in March 2020, but it is unknown what records the landlord relied on to determine this.
The landlord’s records do not show contact from the resident between August 2020 and November 2021. The resident has provided some screenshots from the landlord’s portal of repairs being completed in September 2021 and maintains that she was still reporting repairs during this period, however it is unclear from the evidence provided what the repairs were.
In November 2021, the landlord was made aware that there was a wider rodent issue in neighbouring properties. It had also previously carried out pest treatment in the wider estate in August 2020. However, it still maintained that it was the resident’s responsibility to treat her own property.
Records do not confirm how the landlord assessed whose responsibility it was to complete the treatment and how it had followed its own internal pest process, or what, if any, advice was given to the resident about what she needed to do. This was a failing and meant that it was unclear how the situation would be monitored to ensure that the infestation could be resolved within a reasonable timeframe. This also supports the resident’s concern that she had to report repairs again as they were not logged. This would have not only caused frustration for the resident but would have delayed the resident’s ability to fully resolve the pest infestation.
When the resident raised a stage one complaint on 30 November 2021 the landlord completed some more works to the access points. However, the landlord’s records show that the holes in the loft were not attended to until 24 August 2022 and the hole under the sink was not repaired until 11 November 2022.
The landlord maintains that on occasions it was unable to complete works due to the infestation, but it is unclear why the landlord considered it reasonable for the resident to eliminate the infestation while access points in the structure remained open. The response time to complete these repairs was unreasonable and not within the landlord’s own timescales. Furthermore, the holes behind the sink had been raised in November 2021 and were not completed until 12 months later in November 2022.
It was not until the end of January 2022 that the landlord put in place a clear plan, which it shared with the resident in February 2022, to show how it was going to manage the infestation within the wider estate. This should have been completed much earlier in accordance with its own guidance. That it was not was a further failing.
The landlord maintained in its stage one complaint response that the pest control treatment was the resident’s responsibility within her property. However, it appropriately reviewed this during the escalation of the complaint at some point between March 2022 and July 2022, when it agreed to pay for an environmental clean and clearance of the loft. This included fumigation to eliminate any remaining activity and disposal of rodents and droppings. This was appropriate given the length of time the resident had been waiting for repairs to the access points which had hindered her ability to effectively resolve the rodent infestation herself.
It is further noted that the landlord’s pest control findings within the estate in January 2022 showed that the infestation was a much wider issue in the area, which was affecting other properties. In addition to the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord also has a responsibility to ensure that the property is free from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating system (HHSRS). It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not agree to complete the treatment in the resident’s property until nearly six months after the findings in the wider estate.
This service has not seen any clear reports to show when the resident’s internal pest control treatment commenced, dates it attended and what the treatment plan was. Quotes, purchase orders and a survey for pest treatment have been provided but it is unclear which contractors were instructed. The evidence provided by the landlord does not demonstrate that it appropriately monitored the progress or effectiveness of the treatment. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2022 to report that poison had been placed in the loft and in the garden but then had to chase this again in August 2022 as rat boxes were not being regularly checked within her property or on the estate.
Evidence that there was still a rodent issue in September 2022 was highlighted by the landlord and the resident. The landlord agreed to fully inspect the property to agree a final action plan in October 2022. This was at least four months after it had agreed to complete the pest control treatment itself, and eight months after the resident had stressed the impact it was having on her and her daughter’s health. The landlord should have been monitoring its own pest control. It could have then planned the repairs in accordance with the treatment. This would have ensured that access points were blocked in a timely manner so that the infestation could be resolved. That it did not meant that effective treatment was further delayed which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord identified its poor level of service in its stage two complaint response and offered a total of £475 compensation, comprising £75 for each identified failing, and a further £100 for the overall delays. However, the compensation was inadequate to address the adverse effect of the failings identified in this report. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for the repairs and updates on treatment plans for over a year. The landlord was not proactive in assessing whether a repair it was responsible for was contributing to the matter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assist the resident with pest treatment at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s delays and failure to monitor its repairs and pest treatment resulted in a significant detriment to the resident. She and her daughter have endured additional time with rat’s present in the building, and she has reported that this was impacting her health.
It is acknowledged that some repairs were raised with contractors correctly but were not fully completed by the contractor. Also, that, due to high costs, quotes had to be approved and this would have contributed to delays. Nevertheless, this Service has noted that in February 2023 the landlord advised that works to the loft were still outstanding. This is over eight months after it agreed to complete the works, which is a significant delay.
The resident advised this service that the vents had now been installed but that all other matters remained outstanding. This service has not seen any evidence to show that the remaining repairs have been completed or whether treatment has continued, and the infestation resolved. An order has been made in respect of this below.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation amount to maladministration and the compensation offered does not adequately reflect the detriment to the resident. The rats were a potential hazard under the HHSRS, and the landlord was aware that the resident had a child and that she was pregnant. The landlord’s lack of urgency and delays in attending to the situation have caused the resident prolonged distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right with the resident; and ensuring that the landlord’s practices when dealing with reports of infestation, are improved.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s website states it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the stage one complaint for 25 working days. It then took 40 working days for it to provide its stage one response which was outside its own timescales, and the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident had to chase the complaint as the landlord did not contact her to notify her of the delays or provide any guidance on when to expect the response. This resulted in the resident requesting a stage two escalation before the stage one response had been issued.
The stage one complaint response did not state whether the complaint was upheld or not. The resident said that contractors failed to attend to complete works and that jobs had been cancelled and had to be re-raised, but the complaint response did not address these issues. Part 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling.
The response also failed to consider whether the landlord’s own failing in completing the repairs to the entry and exit points had contributed to the re-infestation. That it did not was a missed opportunity to identify all that had gone wrong and put it right. This caused the resident additional time, distress, and inconvenience in having to pursue the complaint further.
The landlord did appropriately address the wider estate issue within its response and provided details of what actions it would take. The evidence provided to this Service does not show that it monitored those works after the complaint and kept the resident informed of progress, which was a further failing and did not foster a good landlord and tenant relationship.
The stage two response acknowledgement was not sent to the resident until 61 days after the resident had requested the escalation. This caused the resident additional time and trouble as she had to chase the matter several times. The landlord did however appropriately acknowledge this failing in its stage two final response.
The landlord then sent a partial stage two response to the resident within its timescales which outlined what actions it would take and provided the resident with a single point of contact to ensure matters could be concluded. Although this was not a full response to the complaint, the landlord gave the resident the option to have a full response at this stage if she wished to pursue her complaint externally.
The landlord continued to communicate with the resident informing her when appointments were made and chasing the repairs and relevant contractors. However, the repairs were still not completed five months later, and the resident was frustrated, so requested a stage two response be issued so she could pursue her complaint externally. The landlord appropriately issued its final stage two response within three working days.
The landlord apologised within its response that it had not been able to resolve the matter and acknowledged the delays, disruption, and failings the resident had encountered. It reasonably considered how it could put things right and offered compensation for its failings in relation to the rodent infestation.
However, given that there were still outstanding issues in respect of the rodent infestation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the remaining issues within its response and provide an action plan of how it would proceed to get the matter resolved. This would have given the resident some reassurance that it would be resolved.
In respect of its complaint handling the landlord offered £150 for its failure to resolve the matter within the complaints process, and for its “complaint handling failures”. This does not fully reflect the impact the failings had on the resident. The complaint process was significantly delayed. It failed to identify all that had gone wrong and put it right. It also failed to monitor the outcome of assurances made during the complaint process. It further failed by not providing an action plan of how it would resolve the main issue of the complaint. This has been considered in the compensation and order made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete necessary repairs within reasonable time frames. Its overall communication with the resident in respect of the repairs and pest treatment was poor. It failed to monitor its pest control treatment adequately to ensure that the treatment plan coincided with the blocking of exit and entry points to ensure that it was doing all it could to resolve the infestation. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge some of its failings, but the compensation offered did not reflect the significant impact on the resident.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure, address all key elements of the complaint and it failed to resolve the issues raised. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble pursing the matter with this Service.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1,425 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £625 already offered if it has not been paid already.
  2. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of reports of a rat infestation.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide evidence to this Service that the following repairs have been completed:
  1. The contaminated loft insulation has been removed.
  2. The relevant holes in the loft, roof, and kitchen have been sealed.
  3. All kitchen units have been inspected and relevant repairs have been completed.
2. If any of the above repairs remain outstanding, the landlord must provide this Service and the resident with timescales for the completion of repairs. This should not exceed six weeks.
3. Provide this Service with evidence that the rat infestation has been resolved and if not provide an action plan of how it intends to resolve the issue.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider how it handled the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and identify points of learning. It should share its findings with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.