Newlon Housing Trust (202338058)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has lived there since 2015. The resident’s 4 children live in the property. They are aged 17, 11, 5 and 3.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of mice in the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of mice in the property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord raised tasks for its contractor and pest control to attend, but did not sufficiently manage the issue to ensure the problem was solved. The resident had to repeatedly chase when the issue was clearly not improving. The infestation has caused significant emotional distress to the resident and health risks to her young family.
7. There were delays in the landlord’s 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.

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.

8. The resident said there have been mice in her property for at least 4 years and there is a serious infestation of the entire property. Photographs show mice droppings covering large areas of the carpets and on top of the kitchen worktops and cooker. There are also photographs of dead mice. The resident explained the mice are everywhere, in the plug sockets, in her bed and in her wardrobe. She said she has found mice droppings in her youngest child’s crib. When the resident sets traps, she said she often finds up to 4 mice in a single trap.
9. This shows the extent of the problem. The resident is understandably distressed about the effect on her family’s health, particularly her young children. For the problem to have continued for so long, at such a level, is unacceptable. The resident has reported the issue to the landlord numerous times. There is little to no communication evidence from the landlord to the resident outside of the complaint process. This is unfair and unreasonable.
10. The resident’s MP and a health practitioner have written to the landlord to emphasise the detrimental effect the infestation is having on the family. When the resident’s washing machine needed repairs, the company refused to send an engineer due to the risks posed by the mice and their droppings. This showed the seriousness of the problem and how it was assessed by independent people who observed it.
11. The landlord has raised pest control visits in response to the resident’s reports. This was appropriate initially but the same treatments have been done repeatedly without any improvement in the situation. There have also been delays in doing the treatment. A contractor visited at the end of 2023 and in January 2024 and they recommended blocking holes behind and under the kitchen units. This job was raised by the landlord on 7 March 2024 and completed on 30 April 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
12. This repair, which involved filling holes with wire wool and expandable foam, proved ineffective. Another contractor reported on 3 July 2024 there were gaps along the kitchen skirting boards. He said the expanding foam previously used had been easily chewed through by the mice. In the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the previous repair was inadequate. It asked its contractor to complete more intrusive proofing works. The resident had to chase this 2 weeks later when she had heard nothing further.
13. The contractor attended on 7 August 2024 and said he was not sure where the mice were coming in. The recommendation was for pest control to re-attend. The resident was understandably frustrated by this as pest control had been previously without success. She felt she was going around in circles.
14. The resident reported the problem was worsening. She said the landlord’s focus had been on the kitchen but the mice were clearly in all areas of the property. Throughout 2025 the resident has continued to suffer the impact of the infestation. Her clothes, bedding and carpets have been ruined by mice chewing them. The children are scared due to the mice running around their home. The resident’s younger children are at risk of putting mice droppings in their mouth as much of the property is covered in them. The problem poses an ongoing risk to the family’s physical and mental health.
15. In May and July 2025 the contractor visited and filled visible gaps with foam and wire. This did not reduce the number of mice. The most recent visit was 21 October 2025. The resident said the contractor lay boxes of poison down and said he would advise the landlord that everywhere in the property needed to be sealed.
16. The landlord has made some effort to address the issue by sending pest control and contractors, but there has been no effective ownership or management of the issue to ensure it is solved or escalated. This is a failure. The same treatments and repairs have been repeated and proved ineffective over a long period of time. The landlord’s pest policy says it should take eradication and prevention measures. Neither prevention nor eradication has been achieved yet the landlord relied on further reporting from the resident to continue its efforts. The lack of progress, together with poor communication to the resident, amounts to maladministration.
17. We appreciate it may be difficult to find the source of the mice and stop them entering the property, but the landlord has an obligation to the resident to continue trying all available options and not stop until the problem is solved. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places responsibility on the landlord to maintain the property in a habitable condition. This includes it being free of vermin.
18. It is hazardous for the resident to remain in the property if it continues. She has expressed a desire to move to another property. The landlord may wish to consider this option given the extent of the infestation that has not improved with the intervention so far.
19. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of mice in the property. It is ordered to provide evidence of an action plan to eradicate the mice infestation and prevent its return. This should include clear timescales and additional, more robust measures to what has already failed. The landlord must explain the plan to the resident. The landlord is then advised to remain in regular contact with the resident, proactively assessing the efficacy of its plan, until the issue is resolved.
20. The landlord offered £500 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. This is not proportionate to the impact its failure has had on the resident. The landlord is ordered pay the resident £700 in recognition of the distress caused by its failure to resolve the issue (inclusive of the original offer). This is in line with our remedies guidance where the level of maladministration has had a significant impact. 

21. The stage 1 response was provided 32 days after the complaint was made. This exceeded the landlord’s policy timescale of 10 working days. It did inform the resident it needed more time to respond but this was already 16 working days after the complaint was made. It was then a further 16 working days until the response was given. This was not in accordance with policy and amounts to service failure.
22. The resident made it clear in writing on 10 May 2024 that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The problem was not resolved after the latest repair. While the resident may not have specifically said she wanted her complaint to be escalated, her dissatisfaction and distress was obvious. The complaint could have been escalated at this point. When it did ultimately go to stage 2, it was 35 working days later that the response was given. This was more than the landlord’s 20 working day target.
23. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It offered £25 compensation for the late stage 1 response. This was not proportionate to the stress, time and inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord did not have meaningful communication with the resident outside of the complaints process. Therefore the delay in response caused further distress and anxiety.
24. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation to the resident in recognition of the impact of its delays in complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the level of failure identified here.

Learning

25. The landlord should show commitment to the resolution of an ongoing serious issue that is causing detriment to the resident. It is not sufficient to raise the same repair tasks that have had no effect. This should be demonstrated through regular communication with the resident and confirmation of whether measures have been successful.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. There were sufficient records to allow for this investigation.