London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202302241)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302241

Tower Hamlets Homes

Updated 24 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of pests in the property;
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 4th floor.
  2. The landlord moved all residents out of their properties following an explosion in the building in August 2022. The resident began returning to his property on 8 June 2023. Upon spending time in the flat, he discovered bites which developed into a rash on his neck and chest area. He reported this to the landlord on the same day saying he believed this was bedbugs as he had previously had similar pest issue several years prior.
  3. The resident followed this up with the landlord on several occasions throughout June and July 2023. A pest control contractor attended the resident’s property on 31 July 2023. The contractor found no evidence of bedbugs and advised the landlord that it was safe for the resident to move back in. The landlord passed this information onto the resident on 2 August 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint on 3 August 2023. He was unhappy about it trying to get him to return to the property as he felt this was uninhabitable due to the pests. He was also unhappy that in the 8 weeks since reporting the problem, the landlord had only attended on 1 occasion.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. It said that it had agreed to extend his temporary accommodation to 16 August 2023. It said it would not extend this further as the property was now ready. It reiterated that its contractors had inspected the property and found no trace of any infestation. It advised that they had also left traps and would return to inspect further on 21 August 2023. As a gesture of goodwill, it offered to replace the resident’s bed since this had previously been a source of an infestation.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 10 August 2023 as he felt the landlord’s decision was leaving him homeless as he believed the property still had pests. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 November 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had deemed the property habitable again. It also reiterated that its contractors had found no evidence of an infestation. It confirmed that it had replaced the resident’s bed.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 22 November 2023, asking us to consider his complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord failed to attend follow-up appointments, meaning he had arranged his own treatment of the problem. He said that he would like some sort of financial compensation to cover the upheaval he experienced and the detriment to his quality of life. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to a request for a financial settlement and refund of service charges for the period from August 2022 to November 2023. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. A landlord needs to be given opportunity to consider a matter through its complaints process before we can investigate. The resident’s concerns about upheaval and service charges from August 2022 onwards were not part of this complaint so we have not assessed those matters in this report.

Pest control

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that tenants have a responsibility to deal with pests in their own properties. It says residents can report pests to it and it will be able to advise on how to best handle them. The landlord’s repair policy also gives timescales for how long it will take to complete a repair. For emergency repairs, it says it will visit within 24 hours to make safe. For any other repairs, it says it will complete these within 20 days of a report. 
  2. At the time of the resident’s report in June 2023, he had been living in temporary accommodation for a number of months due to an unrelated issue. He still held a valid tenancy agreement for his property, which detailed his obligations: ‘Tenants have a responsibility to deal with pests in their own properties, in accordance with their tenancy agreement. Tenants can report to LBTH Pest Control Team, who will advise accordingly’. ‘When tenants report pest problems to us we will recommend appropriate action to them. If they request us to we can arrange for our contractor to carry out the work at their expense’.
  3. On this basis, when the resident returned to his property in June 2023 and identified a potential issue with pests, it was his responsibility to arrange a pest control appointment with the relevant contractor. It is acknowledged that this was not a standard scenario as the resident had not been living at the property for a number of months, however it still remained the resident’s responsibility.
  4. When the resident first reported that he thought his property had an issue with pests, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the relevant pest control contractor to arrange an appointment. However, it said it would liaise with the project management team. The resident did not receive a response and chased the landlord a week later. This caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience as he was left having to contact the landlord to find out what action it was going to take.
  5. Following the resident’s contact, the landlord informed the resident on 21 June 2023, that it would be beneficial for him to report this directly to the pest control contractor. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, especially as the resident was responsible for pests within his property and the evidence shows that he was aware of how to arrange the pest control appointment.
  6. On 27 June 2023 the resident responded, following his direct contact with the contractor, and said he was unhappy with the contractor’s proposed plan to treat the pests. The landlord responded on 5 July 2023 and said that it was in communication with the contractor and would be in touch with an appointment date.
  7. Following this, the landlord failed to contact the resident with any further information. This was a minor failing with its communication rather than core issue, which is accepted caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience as he was once again left chasing the landlord for a response as he was unsure when he was able to return to his property, but again he could have contacted the contractors directly. 
  8. When the resident chased a response, the landlord confirmed that the contractor had scheduled an appointment for 31 July 2023.  Following this appointment, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that the contractor had said he could return to the property, as there were no signs of any pests but agreed to extend his temporary accommodation until 9 August 2023. It also confirmed that the contractor said it would return on 21 August 2023 for a follow up appointment. This was a reasonable response and showed that the landlord was working with the resident to ensure a smooth return to his property.
  9. Following this the resident raised a complaint about whether the property was suitable for him to move back into as he believed the property was uninhabitable.
  10. Based on the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately when responding. It confirmed that the contractor had inspected the resident’s property and no bedbugs had been identified, but it had left traps as a precaution. It also confirmed the date that the temporary accommodation would end and offered to replace the resident’s bed, after he said that he had previous issues with bed bugs.
  11. The landlord’s actions show that it treated the resident fairly and was attempting to put things right for him.  As such this resolved the minor failing identified in relation to the landlord’s communication, but in any event given the resident was fully aware of his responsibilities in relation to the matter, and the landlord was not obligated to act.
  12. The resident also told the Ombudsman that he felt the landlord’s decision to end his temporary accommodation whilst he was concerned about pests effectively made him homeless. When the temporary accommodation ended on 16 August 2023, the landlord’s contractors had inspected the property and found no evidence of an infestation. Although the landlord did not retain a copy of the 31 July 2023 inspection report, there is no evidence that the property was unfit for habitation or that the landlord’s actions caused the resident to become homeless.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At both stages 1 and 2, it says it will provide its complaint responses within 20 working days of a resident raising a complaint. It says that in circumstances where it is unable to provide its response within these timescales, it will keep the complainants informed.
  2. At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord provided its complaint response within 6 calendar days. This was in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
  3. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord failed to provide a response within the timescales set out in its policy. It took the landlord 67 working days to provide its complaint response. It also failed to properly keep the resident updated about any delays to its response time.
  4. The landlord also provided incorrect information in its stage 2 complaint response. It said that its contractors had attended a follow-up appointment on 21 August 2023. Its records actually demonstrate that no contractor attended on this date. This failure likely caused inconvenience to the resident and represented a failure to handle his complaint fairly.
  5. The landlord’s delay at stage 2 of the complaints process and its provision of incorrect information in this complaint response represented service failure. For this, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there were minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of his complaint.