London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202448931)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448931

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

30 September 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:
   1. The resident’s requests for rehousing and/or adaptations to the property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rats around the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident and her husband are joint tenants. They have a secure tenancy with the landlord. They live at the property with their 5 children. Some of their children are disabled. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority.
4. The resident complained to the landlord in January 2025. She said the property was overcrowded and did not meet her family’s needs. She also mentioned an ongoing rat issue around the property. She wanted the landlord to address these matters. She referenced previous interactions between the parties.
5. The local authority issued a stage 1 response in March 2025. It focused on some housing supply and demand issues that it was facing. Subsequently, the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not fully responded to her concerns. She also said it had not offered her any solutions.
6. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in late March 2025. It said it had not identified any failures. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. In September 2025 she told us that her previous concerns were ongoing and she wanted the landlord to address these.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

7. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
8. The resident wants the landlord to move her family to a home with more bedrooms. Alternatively, she wants it to carry out major adaptation works to the property. Her preferred adaptations include an extension or a loft conversion (to create more bedrooms). Her requests are based on health/welfare reasons.
9. The resident’s requests relate to the local authority’s non-landlord functions. These include allocating homes, assessing medical needs, and funding major adaptation works. The Housing Ombudsman Service can consider complaints about local authorities when they are acting in their capacity as landlords.
10. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can consider complaints about other local authority activities. This includes complaints about requests to move on health/welfare grounds. It also includes complaints about assessing medical needs, and grant funding for major adaptations. It is noted that the resident has previously complained to the LGSCO about these matters.
11. Paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
12. After carefully considering all the evidence, under paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s requests for rehousing and/or adaptations to the property.
13. This is because it falls within the LGSCO’s remit instead. We can consider other aspects of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rats around the property

14. The landlord has supplied a copy of its tenancy conditions and a pest control services agreement. We have also checked the local authority’s pest control website. The evidence shows the landlord does not provide free pest control services to social housing tenants who live in houses (it has a different approach to flats).
15. Records show the landlord completed pest proofing works to the property in May 2023. There is no indication that it raised any similar repair/treatment orders subsequently. A landlord is not usually liable to carry out repairs until it has been put on notice that they are needed. In this case, there is a lack of information to show that the landlord was aware of an unresolved rat issue.
16. There is a significant gap in the evidence following the above referenced proofing works. Subsequently, the resident complained to the landlord on 31 January 2025. This was around 20 months after the landlord’s works in 2023. In her complaint, the resident said the property was affected by an unresolved rat issue. Her other key points were:
    1. There was a rat problem in the local area.
    2. Between 2019 and 2022, rats had damaged the property and the family’s belongings.
    3. Pest control had carried out various rat treatments over the years. However, the landlord had never established how rats accessed the property and its loft.
    4. The family still heard rats under the floorboards. They were unable to use the loft.
    5. If the landlord did complete major adaptations to the property, then it should also “[eliminate] the rats situation for good”.
17. On 4 March 2025 the local authority issued a stage 1 response. In line with the resident’s complaint, it focused on her requests for rehousing/adaptations. The local authority said rats were a matter for its landlord services department. It also said it had notified this team about the resident’s concerns. The evidence points to a complaint handling issue. We have considered this in the relevant section.
18. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 March 2025. She said the landlord had not fully addressed her questions and concerns. She also said its response did not offer any solutions. Some of her comments were understandable.
19. On 25 March 2025 the landlord issued the resident a stage 2 response. It said it was not clear if new entry points had been created since its proofing works in 2023. It also said the resident was expected to notify pest control and pay for its  services. It said pest control would notify the landlord if the property required any related repairs. The evidence shows the landlord’s comments were accurate.
20. The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 4 April 2024. She felt it was unfair that the landlord would not pay to treat the rats. She told us the landlord had paid for treatments previously. It is noted that the landlord’s service agreement shows the relevant funding was withdrawn in November 2023. In other words, it stopped providing free pest treatments/services to tenants in houses around that time.
21. The landlord liaised with pest control subsequently. This may have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. On 2 May 2025 pest control then emailed the resident. It wanted one of its supervisors to inspect the property. This was around 5 weeks after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response.
22. The landlord’s pest services agreement shows it aims to ensure that any infestation issues are treated promptly. Given this aim, 5 weeks was an unreasonable timescale in the Ombudsman’s opinion. The above suggests the landlord should have involved pest control earlier and it contributed to a related delay.
23. In its email to the resident, pest control told her about an available appointment. In reply, the resident suggested an alternative day and time. Subsequently, between May and June 2025, she rearranged around 5 scheduled pest control visits. On 18 June 2025, the resident told pest control that she would arrange her own works. Pest control relayed the resident’s update to the landlord soon afterwards. It was reasonable for the landlord to monitor the situation.
24. The resident updated the Ombudsman in September 2025. She said her initial concerns were ongoing. She also said she had not interacted with the landlord about these since pest control had attempted to arrange an inspection. She felt the landlord should carry out a survey to identify the root cause of the rat issue. Her other key points were:
    1. Rats were a health and safety issue and her children were vulnerable.
    2. The family’s cats were keeping rats out of the property. However, they were in the surrounding area. This included the garden and nearby homes.
    3. The family were paying significant storage fees because they were unable to use the property’s loft.
    4. The landlord should complete thorough pest proofing works to the property. The family did not have the funds to arrange these.
25. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord has overlooked a long-term rat infestation. There is evidence that it contributed to a delay after the resident raised her concerns in 2025. Specifically, it did not involve pest control promptly following its stage 2 response. This contributed to a delay of around 5 weeks. This timeframe was inadequate given the potential health implications.
26. Ultimately, the resident decided not to proceed with a pest control inspection. This indicates the delay had a limited adverse impact on her. Nevertheless, we find it amounted to a service failure in the circumstances. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident some compensation to put things right.
27. Our calculation is based on the evidence we have seen. It also reflects the landlord’s compensation guidance, and our own guidance on remedies. The landlord’s guidance shows it can award between £25 and £100 to address service failures.

Complaint handling

28. The resident’s complaint referenced some historical issues. The landlord has not addressed these matters. Its complaints policy says the landlord cannot consider complaints about matters that are more than 12 months old. Similar time restrictions also apply to the Ombudsman. Ultimately, the landlord was not obliged to investigate the historical aspects of the resident’s complaint.
29. Still, there were problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. Significantly, it did not respond to the resident’s rat complaint at stage 1. Instead, the response was issued by the local authority, which said the matter was the landlord’s responsibility. The evidence points to an internal coordination problem.
30. The relevant version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) says, “Landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged”. In this case, the landlord’s omission was contrary to the Code. Ultimately, the landlord was unlikely to resolve the resident’s concerns satisfactorily at this point.
31. The resident’s escalation request confirms she was adversely impacted by the incomplete stage 1 response. She ultimately repeated her concerns to the landlord. This may have been avoidable. It is likely this was inconvenient and potentially distressing for her. The landlord should have identified this issue and attempted to put things right. It did not do this. Its approach was inadequate.
32. The landlord could have identified the above issue in its stage 2 response. The evidence suggests it did not consider its own complaint handling during its investigation. It should routinely do this at each complaint stage. This will allow it to identify and address any procedural delays or failures accordingly. As part of this approach, it should consider the full complaint journey at stage 2.
33. The landlord overlooked another important issue during its complaints process. In her complaint, the resident said she felt that one of the property’s internal doors was a fire hazard. Fire is a potential hazard to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It is noted that the HHSRS recommends properly constructed/fitted internal doors.
34. Given the resident’s related safety concerns, the landlord should have reasonably used its complaints process to arrange an inspection of the door. There is no indication it did this. This was inadequate. If the resident felt her concerns had not been taken seriously, this may have been distressing for her.
35. It is noted there was a positive aspect to the landlord’s complaint handling. Specifically, its stage 2 response included information about the Ombudsman and the LGSCO. It also said that the LGSCO was the correct body to consider the rehousing/adaptations aspect of the resident’s complaint. This was a helpful approach.
36. In summary, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint at stage 1. Although the resident was adversely impacted, it did not attempt to put things right for her at stage 2. It also overlooked a significant complaint point about fire safety. Its complaint handling may have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident. Given the above, we find there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
37. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident some compensation to put things right. Our calculation is based on the evidence we have seen. It reflects the landlord’s compensation guidance, and our own guidance on remedies. It also reflects the 2 different service failures that we have identified.

Jurisdiction and Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s requests for rehousing and/or adaptations to the property are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rats around the property.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide a copy of its letter to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
41. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to her and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about rats around the property.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
42. If the resident requests this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to raise a new complaint to address the resident’s concerns around fire safety. In any case, it must arrange for a relevant specialist to inspect the property’s related internal door. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
43. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

44. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord to consider the resident’s request for a pest proofing inspection. Having done so, it should update the resident on its position.