London Borough of Newham (202205788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205788

London Borough of Newham

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of a rodent infestation.
2. Request for compensation for damage due to the infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident was a fixed term tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She has been the leaseholder of the flat since purchasing it on 6 March 2023. She lives with her children.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord inspected the property due to a mice infestation. It advised that it needed to complete a further inspection. On 29 November 2021 the landlord noted that it sealed gaps around the skirting board and pipework with wire wool.
On 20 June 2022 the resident raised a complaint. She advised that she had been requesting for someone to block holes in the property. She advised she had one missed appointment, and a second appointment in which the landlord could not complete the repair. She said the mice had chewed furniture and the matter had been ongoing for a year.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2022. It stated that it had arranged for a building surveyor to visit the property on 4 July 2022. It advised the resident would need to contact the landlord’s insurance company for any claims regarding damage.
The landlord carried out mouse proofing on 20 September 2022. This included blocking gaps with steel wool and using rodent barriers.
The landlord revised its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023. It advised it attended the home on 16 June 2021, 27 July 2021 and 9 February 2022 to carry out mouse proofing repairs. It acknowledged that the resident had to follow up on her repairs, after the building surveyor had completed a report. It offered £50 for this.
It is unclear when the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 14 February 2023. It advised it completed mouse proofing works in October 2022. It offered to put silicone over the wire wool in the bathroom. It advised that the contractor had passed the details of a claim for damaged flooring to its insurance. The landlord also acknowledged that its own insurance department had overlooked the resident’s claim and offered £250 for this. It offered an additional £200 for the delay in proofing the holes.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023. She disputed that the landlord filled the holes in 2021. She also said that the cost she had incurred due to damage exceeded the £450 the landlord awarded. She advised that she wanted the Housing Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

We can only assess the actions of members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this does not include the insurance department or the contractor. We therefore cannot assess the actions of the insurance department or the contractor. We can consider any actions the landlord should have taken to assist in communication with these parties, but not any direct communication between the resident and these parties.
We are aware that the insurer rejected the claim for damage. The Ombudsman cannot assess the insurance decision.

The landlord’s response to reports of a rodent infestation.

On 7 May 2021, the landlord noted that it needed to have some kickboards behind the kitchen cupboard removed so it could complete further investigations. There is no evidence it completed this appointment.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord raised that it needed to fill the holes in the bathroom, hallway and cupboards. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it completed this appointment on 27 July 2021. We note that the resident stated the landlord did not block the holes at this appointment. The landlord’s records do not have sufficient detail for us to be able to assess what actions it took during the appointment on 27 July 2021.
We have seen a repairs record which states that on 29 November 2021 the landlord filled holes around pipes and in the skirting board with steel wool. This appears to be the same repair that on 22 June 2021 the landlord noted that it needed to complete. Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) considers mice infestation to be a risk. HHSRS states children can be at risk. We would expect a landlord to be responding to the resident’s concerns of an infestation, in a timely way given that she had raised this on a number of occasions.
The landlord stated that it partly completed repairs relating to mouse proofing on 9 February 2022. It also said it completed treatment to the home on 22 June 2022, 6 July 2022 and 8 August 2022. The records for these appointments are limited and we have been unable to assess what specific actions the landlord carried out on these dates.
The landlord said it completed mouse proofing works on 24 October 2022. It said that it completed these works, following an inspection which took place on 1 August 2022. However, the Ombudsman has also seen evidence that the contractor completed a survey on 12 September 2022 and mouse proofing works took place on 30 September 2022. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it completed two different inspections and two different appointments for the same issue. We consider that the landlord could have communicated better internally to ensure that it was not duplicating work.
The resident raised concerns that the steel wool which the contractor used to plug gaps in the bathroom, was exposed and was a potential danger to her children. We have not seen evidence that the landlord should have assessed this issue and communicated the outcome to the resident.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in completing the mouse proofing and awarded £200. It is encouraging the landlord recognised there was a delay to completing the mouse proofing. We also acknowledge that the landlord acted on reports of mice infestation. However, we consider that the resident had to make several reports of mice infestations until the landlord fully completed mouse proofing works. We have not seen that the landlord considered the vulnerability within the household, when dealing with the mice infestations. We therefore consider there to be service failure in the landlord’s handling of a rodent infestation.
We are aware that the resident has raised further concerns of mice since the stage 2 response was issued. We are also aware that the responsibility for internal repairs and mouse proofing may no longer be the landlord’s responsibility due to the fact the resident now owns the property. We understand that the resident raised the new issues with the contractor, and they have offered to inspect the property. We will not make any orders on actions the landlord needs to take in response to infestations after the complaints procedure was completed. However, we would recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any support it can offer. We would also encourage the landlord to provide clarity on who is responsible for repairs moving forward.
We consider that the compensation was too low in relation to the failures identified in this report. There were several reports of infestations there is evidence that the landlord took longer to attend to appointments than it should have done. The landlord has also not recognised its failure to consider vulnerability in the home or any potential risk. This is likely to have impacted on the resident. We therefore have increased the compensation to £300 in line with our remedy’s guidance. This includes the £200 offered by the landlord during the complaints process.

The landlord’s response to requests for compensation due to the damage caused by the infestation.

The landlord advised that the resident would need to raise any damage to furniture or items through insurance. We consider this to be an appropriate response from the landlord. In the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the insurance team had overlooked the insurance claim, which had caused a delay to this being processed and offered £250 compensation.
The landlord stated that it would place silicone over the wire wool. We consider this to be a reasonable offer in relation to the resident’s concerns that the wire wool was exposed.
The stage 2 noted that any damages that had happened while the contractor had been on site needed to go through the contractor’s insurance. The landlord confirmed that the claim had been raised. We consider the landlord’s actions to be appropriate.
Although we recognise that there has been damage to the resident’s property, we consider that the landlord signposted the resident appropriately to the correct processes to assess the damage claims. The Ombudsman cannot assess any failings on behalf of the insurance team. As such we consider there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s response to requests for compensation to damage caused by the infestation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that if the resident does not agree with a stage 1 response, it will escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident raised a complaint through a third party on 1 January 2023. This was regarding the same issues that the landlord had addressed in her stage 1 response. The landlord should have escalated the complaint. However, it issued a revised stage 1 response. We would encourage the landlord not to put in extra steps to the complaints process, as this can cause confusion and delays.
We have also seen a stage 1 response to a complaint issued on 5 April 2023. This was in response to a complaint the resident raised on 13 March 2023. The resident raised the complaint after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response. This complaint covered the same issues that had already been through the internal complaints process. The landlord offered a further £100 for the same issues it had acknowledged in its stage 2 response. While it is acknowledged the landlord was attempting to resolve the complaint the next step to take would have been to direct the resident to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
Due the revised stage 1 response and the landlord reconsidering the complaint after stage 2, there was maladministration in complaint handling. We have awarded £150 in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Throughout the report we have noted events which we have been unable to fully assess due to the limited records the landlord provided. The record keeping failures are specific to repairs records and the details stored within these. The resident has disputed that the landlord did not complete repairs it said it had. As the records were limited, the landlord has not been able to give sufficient detail as to what action it took during repairs appointments. Had the landlord records been more detailed, it would have helped the helped the landlord issue more detailed complaint responses. This may have satisfied the resident and resolved the complaint.
We expect the landlord to keep robust records. This is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Good record keeping ensures that the landlord can communicate clearly with the resident and demonstrate what actions it has taken to address a resident’s concerns. The record keeping failures have caused further frustration to the resident, as it has undermined the complaints response. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damage due to the rodent infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450. We have broken this down as:
1. £300 for the failures in responding to reports of an infestation.
2. £150 for complaint handling failures.

The landlord may deduct the £200 offered at stage 2 for delays in responding to the repairs, if it has already paid this. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of this report.

The landlord should review the repairs records in this case. It should consider actions it can take to ensure that repairs records contain details of what took place during the visit to a property and what, if any, actions remain outstanding. Where necessary it should update its policy in relation to this and provide training. The landlord should confirm to the Ombudsman what actions it has taken to prevent similar record keeping failings moving forward. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £250 for the delay in assessing the insurance claim.
It is recommended the landlord communicate with the resident to establish if there are any ongoing concerns with rodent infestations. It is also recommended that the landlord communicate with the resident regarding any changes in responsibility for repairs, now that the resident has purchased the flat.
It is recommended that the landlord ensure that it follows its complaints process and escalates the complaint to stage 2 if the resident shows dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. The landlord should also ensure it does not issue new complaints responses for the same issues, once the complaints process has been completed. It should ensure that it signposts to the Ombudsman or other relevant organisations if the resident remains unhappy.