London Borough of Wandsworth (202508248)

Background

1. The resident lived at the property, a 3-bedroom house, with her 2 children. The landlord was aware the resident has generalised anxiety disorder. The resident reported a mouse in the property on 3 October 2022. Between October 2022 and January 2023 the landlord’s pest contractors visited at least 7 times. The pest contractor identified some pest proofing work was required. The evidence suggests some proofing work was completed in December 2022. The resident moved out for a month in October 2022, again in November 2022 (unclear how long for), and for a third and final time in January 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation

6. The landlord’s poor communication with both the resident and its pest contractors has contributed to avoidable delays addressing the pest issue. And caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Complaint handling

7. There landlord did not investigate the complaint as part of its formal process at the earliest opportunity. It also did not acknowledge all its failings in the complaint responses.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

The events of October 2022 to January 2023 are noted above for context, but there is no evidence the resident tried to make a formal complaint until 6 September 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will only consider events from January 2024, when the resident chased the pest proofing issue, to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

We also acknowledge the resident has started legal proceedings in relation to other issues on 19 August 2025. There is no indication the landlord’s handling of proofing work repairs has been before a court.

8. The landlord’s website says residents should inform the housing area team about any pest issues. For some pests, treatment will be arranged. Its repairs policy (May 2024) says non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days and planned repairs should be completed within 60 working days.
9. The resident’s tenancy conditions says “landlord employees… or contractors may need to enter her home at reasonable times to inspect… [and] carry out repairs or other work” It expects residents to agree to this.
10. In a call with us, the resident said she spoke to the landlord in January 2024 to report the proofing work had still not been completed. The landlord raised a work order for a 3 point pest treatment and quote for proofing work on 9 January 2024. We acknowledge the resident had not been living at the property for a year at this point. Given the time that had passed since the last reports of pests, this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations with regard to the process it follows when dealing with pests.
11. The pest control contractor visited on 5 March 2024 for the first treatment. Timescales for pest issues are not mentioned in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, this was almost 2 months after the work order had been raised, which was an unreasonable delay. The contractor visited again 6.5 weeks later for the second appointment. It noted “no poison consumption, no dead mice, and no droppings found.” The contractor tried to visit 11 days later for the final appointment, but noted the resident said she forgot about the appointment. It was therefore unclear whether the contractor would have quoted for any necessary proofing work on the final appointment.
12. After this, there was then no evidence of contact between parties for 3 months. Although the landlord was aware the contractor did not report any mice activity after the second visit, it would have been reasonable to follow-up with the resident and contractor to re-arrange the final visit. There was no evidence it did so, which was a failing. The failure to follow up with either party led the resident to try and raise a formal complaint 3 months later.
13. The landlord said it would deal with the complaint at service level in an email to the resident on 12 September 2024. There was no evidence it took any action for over 2 weeks, which was a further delay. However, on 26 September 2024, the evidence showed the landlord:
    1. Raised another work order for treatment and a proofing report.
    2. Chased its contractor for notes of previous visits.
    3. Emailed the resident.

These were positive steps to try and resolve the issue. It was reasonable to raise another pest treatment, as no treatment had taken place since 19 April 2024. It was also reasonable to request a new proofing report given the change of contractor that had identified proofing around October 2022, and the time that had passed since then. However, the email to the resident on 26 September 2024 was another missed opportunity to explain its process of completing 3 treatment visits before proofing work would be completed.

14. The evidence showed the pest contractor tried to attend on 3 occasions between 14 October 2024 and 14 November 2024, but there was no access to the property. The landlord chased the resident on 11 November 2024 for a response to its email sent in September 2024, but this was 6.5 weeks later, which was slow. There was then no evidence of contact between parties until 7 February 2025, almost another 3 months later, when the landlord emailed the resident again. This time the resident replied the same day and explained she had been dealing with a PTSD relapse. After no response from the landlord, the resident chased on 16 February 2025 which caused her inconvenience. The landlord’s failure to respond to the second email in a timely manner led to the resident’s request to escalate to a formal complaint.
15. The landlord used its complaints process to try and put things right for the resident. It arranged 3 further pest contractor appointments, which was positive. It also raised a further work order for proofing work. However, again it did not manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the treatment before proofing work. The evidence showed the pest control contractor asked the landlord to change the work order due to additional proofing work required 3 days after the stage 1 response. However, the evidence showed the landlord missed the email. This meant the request was not actioned for a month, which contributed to delays.
16. The resident missed the first pest treatment appointment scheduled for 1 April 2025. This was due to an error in the stage 1 response(addressed in the complaint handling section below). She emailed the landlord the same day and said she did not want any more treatment until the proofing work had been completed. Again, there was no evidence of a prompt landlord response, which led to a second failed treatment appointment on 16 April 2025.
17. The landlord then used its stage 2 response to try and put things right. It said there was a pest treatment booked for that day and a proofing appointment booked for 9 May 2025. It was unclear whether the proofing appointment went ahead. However, the landlord’s contractor attended on 13 June 2025 and completed some further proofing work. While it was positive it did so, this was another month later, which was a further delay. The contractor noted the boiler and gas meter would need removing to fully proof the area. This work has not yet been completed.
18. As outlined above, we will only consider events from January 2024 to April 2025. The resident has not lived at the property since January 2023. This could be a reason why there was no reports of pests between January 2023 and January 2024, and a contributing factor to why the 3 pest contractor appointments were missed between October and November 2024 which delayed any proofing work. We acknowledge staying in other accommodation would have caused the resident some inconvenience. But by doing so, she would not have been as impacted by the pest issues and lack of proofing. She would have been more affected had there been no alternative accommodation options.
19. From the evidence we have seen, the landlord only sent 2 emails to the resident between 27 September 2025 and 4 March 2025, a period of almost 7 months. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the pest treatment and proofing, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to be more proactive in its communication with the resident during this time. There was a lack of communication from the landlord, which contributed to delays between:
    1. 30 April 2024 (after the failed third treatment visit) and 12 September 2024 (when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email). This was a period of over 4 months.
    2. 12 September and 26 September 2024, a period of 2 weeks.
    3. 27 September 2024 and 11 November 2024, a period of 6.5 weeks.
    4. 12 November 2024 and 7 February 2025, a period of 3 months.

This totals around 9 months of poor communication.

20. The landlord also:
    1. Failed to respond to the resident’s emails sent on 7 and 16 February 2025, and 1 April 2025.
    2. Missed an email from the pest contractor on 17 March 2025.
    3. Failed to manage the resident’s expectations around what to expect regarding proofing work on multiple occasions, only explaining its approach in writing in the stage 2 complaint response.
21. The evidence showed the landlord took action to try and address the pest issue in January 2024, September 2024, and April 2025. We acknowledge the lack of action completing proofing work was not solely down to the landlord. But the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations, poor communication and failure to follow up with the resident and the contractor after each appointment, and failure to oversee the pest treatment and proofing has contributed to delays completing proofing and caused distress and inconvenience.
22. Overall, although the landlord tried to take action to address the pest issue, it was not proactive and it failed to acknowledge its communication failings in its complaint responses. An apology was therefore not enough to put things right. There was therefore maladministration and an order of £350 compensation is made.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will:
    1. Acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and provide a written response within 10 working days.
    2. Acknowledge requests to escalate to stage 2 within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days.
24. The resident tried to raise a formal complaint on 6 September 2025. After no response, she chased 5 days later, which caused her inconvenience. The landlord’s complaint policy allows it “to treat service requests as stage 1 complaints straight away if that is [the resident’s] preference.” In the resident’s email sent to landlord she said “I am writing this letter as a formal complaint regarding the ongoing rodent issue at my home.” It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord not to begin its complaints process at this stage.
25. The landlord’s stage 1 response:
    1. Said the first pest treatment appointment would be between 9am and 12pm. However this was incorrect, and led to the resident missing the appointment.
    2. Failed to mention the pest proofing work, the crux of the resident’s complaint, which led to the complaint escalation prior to the further pest treatment in April 2025 taking place.
    3. Did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding its process of 3 treatments before pest proofing work would be completed.
26. Neither complaint response acknowledged how the communication failings and lack of oversight of its pest contractor contributed to delays in trying to address the pest issue for the resident.
27. We acknowledge the landlord reviewed the complaint handling in October 2025 and offered the resident £100 compensation. While this was reasonable, it should have been offered as part of the formal complaints process, rather than over 5 months later. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of an additional £200 compensation is made.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

28. It was positive the landlord identified learning in both its complaint responses. However, our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of the pest treatment and proofing. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord followed our spotlight report recommendation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The resident provided evidence to us in October 2025. As part of one of the emails, we note the landlord said “it was not standard procedure… to log each call. While officers may choose to record details of a call at their own discretion… this is not routinely undertaken.” The evidence showed the landlord also asked its contractor for further information and details of work orders on at least 4 occasions between 26 September 2024 and 6 August 2025. The landlord should consider ways it can improve its record keeping of both repairs and contact from residents.