Leeds City Council (202430014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430014

Leeds City Council

29 July 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 handling of:
1. Reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in December 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom upper floor maisonette. The landlord has a record that the resident has mental health and mobility problems.
On 28 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about a “severe rat infestation” in her home, and the local area. She said there was a hole in the steps leading up to her property where the rats were coming from. She said she had reported the issue several times, someone had been to inspect, but nothing had been done to get rid of the rats. She was concerned about the health risk, anxious, and could not sleep at night. She could hear rats in the walls and ceiling and a rat had recently jumped out of her kitchen cupboard.
On 29 July 2024 the landlord said its housing officers would inspect the hole in the steps and report their findings to its repairs team. It asked the resident to contact the local authority Pest Control service (Pest Control), which would provide treatment free of charge.
On 6 August 2024 the resident told the landlord’s housing officer during an annual tenancy review, that there were holes under the kitchen sink and in the pantry that needed blocking, to stop rats getting in.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2024. It said it did not uphold the complaint because:
1. It had visited the estate with Pest Control “a few weeks ago” and Pest Control were “looking into potential solutions.”
2. The housing officer had raised a works order for rodent entry points to be repaired.
On 23 September 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had not yet blocked the rat entry points. She had done this herself with expanding foam but could not now access the stop cock in the kitchen as a result. The rat problem had worsened and there were rats in her sofa. This was causing her significant stress and anxiety and impacting her wellbeing. She said she could not live at the property until the rat problem was solved, and asked that the landlord pause her rent liability until then.
On 24 September 2024 the landlord sent the resident contact details for Pest Control.
On 27 September 2024 Pest Control told the landlord they said they had visited the estate that day and found rat activity. They had tried to telephone the resident to arrange a visit but there was no answer. They listed a number of steps they recommended the landlord take in relation to the outside areas.
On 8 October 2024 Pest Control told the landlord they had visited the resident’s property on 2 October 2024 and placed rodenticide bait. They listed necessary repairs inside the resident’s home, to stop rats getting in. They also listed repairs needed in the outside areas, recommended a job be raised for pest treatment of the downstairs property, and asked the landlord to confirm if it wanted them to treat the outside areas.
On 21 October 2024 Pest Control told the landlord they made a follow-up visit on 10 October 2024 and found no evidence of current rodent activity.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 October 2024. It apologised that it had not completed the necessary repairs, but it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It explained this position as follows:
1. It attended to fill the holes under the kitchen sink on 21 August 2024, but could not gain access, and the resident did not answer her phone. It tried to contact her to rebook the repair on 30 September 2024 but was not able to reach her. The repair was then rebooked for 14 October 2024, but it was unable to confirm if the repair had been completed.
2. Additional repairs had been scheduled for 29 October 2024.
3. Pest Control had been pro-active since the resident reported the rats. They found no evidence of current rodent activity when they visited on 10 October 2024.
4. The landlord had asked for the outside areas to be treated.
5. It was unable to pause or refund the rent payments as it did not deem the property to be uninhabitable.
6. It was sorry to hear the resident was experiencing stress and anxiety and, offered a referral to a support service, and provided information regarding self-referral to NHS mental health services.
On 5 November 2024 the resident asked this Service to investigate. She said she could not live in the property, wanted the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs, and pay her compensation, as she had had to pay rent for a property she could not live in.
On 10 February 2025 the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord regarding the standard of the rat-proofing repair work, and the landlord’s communication with her.
On 13 May 2025 the resident told us she was still having issues with rats and the landlord had not completed all of the necessary rat-proofing work.

Assessment and findings

Scope

This investigation will focus on the resident’s 28 July 2024 complaint, and the landlord’s response to this. The resident can refer her 10 February 2025 complaint to us if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. This must be done within 12 months of the date of the stage 2 response.

Landlord response to reports of rats

The landlord’s pest policy said the landlord was responsible for:
1. Treating rat infestation in individual properties and communal areas.
2. Blocking up holes in properties where mice, rats, squirrels and pigeons were getting access.
3. Carrying out repairs where infestation has occurred as a result of a building defect.
While not explicitly stated, in the absence of any evidence of separate contractual arrangements it is assumed that the landlords pest control policy treatment services were provided by the council’s Pest Control team on its behalf.
The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its responsive repairs policy, but directed us to its website. This gave the following timescales for completion of responsive repairs:
1. Emergency – attend within 3 hours, complete within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – 3 working days.
3. Routine – 20 working days.
4. Where it could not meet these timescales due to high levels of demand it would inform the resident.
The resident’s 28 July 2024 complaint said there had been rats since she moved into the property, but it had got worse over the past few months. She said she had already reported the rats several times. However, there is no evidence of any previous report of rats to the landlord within the evidence provided to us by the landlord or the resident. Therefore, this investigation will be based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of rats on 28 July 2024.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report of rats replying to her email the following day. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to contact Pest Control herself, as this would enable her to arrange the appointment at her convenience. It was appropriate that the landlord provided the contact details for Pest Control and made clear the treatment would be provided free of charge to the resident. Pest Control told the landlord (on 29 September 2024) that they raised a job to treat rats on 1 August 2024, but they closed the job after multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact resident.
The resident told the landlord on 23 September 2024 that Pest Control had not attended. In response to this the landlord contacted Pest Control for an update, which led to Pest Control saying they would try and contact the resident again. Following this Pest Control attended the resident’s property on 2 October 2024, inspected, and laid rodenticide bait. Pest Control told the landlord that there was no evidence of current rat infestation on their return visit on 10 October 2024.
Although there was a delay in Pest Control attending, there is no evidence the landlord had a service specification or expectations in place. However, it gave the resident contact details for Pest Control promptly. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord was aware Pest Control had closed the case until 27 September 2024, after which it contacted Pest Control directly.

Internal repairs

As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. However, the repair records provided by the landlord were unclear and insufficiently detailed. This has made investigating this case difficult. While we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
On 6 August 2024 the landlord’s housing officer noted there were holes under the kitchen sink and in the pantry that needed blocking, to prevent rats getting in. However, the landlord’s repairs records show a works order for this was not raised until 13 August 2024, a week later. Given the presence of rats in the kitchen, and the resident’s reported concerns about risk to her health, this delay was unreasonable.
The repair records show the landlord attended to block up the holes on 21 August 2024, but the resident was not in, and did not answer her phone. While the resident was obliged to grant access, there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident in advance of the appointment. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it contacted the resident to rebook the appointment on 30 September 2024, but this is not evidenced in the repair records.
Correspondence from Pest Control to the landlord on 8 October 2024 indicates that the repairs were still outstanding. Pest Control also advised the landlord of additional repairs to the property that were needed to prevent rats gaining access, including:
1. Filling holes around pipework in boiler cupboard.
2. Closing gap between balcony door and threshold.
3. Removing bath panel to check for holes under the bath, and fill any found.
The landlord’s repair records show a visit marked as complete on 14 October 2024, in relation to a works order to block up holes under the kitchen sink and pantry. However, no further information is recorded as to what work, if any was done. Assuming the landlord did block up the holes under the sink and in the pantry on this date, this was still 49 working days after the resident reported the repair. This was far outside of the timescales required by the landlord’s responsive repair policy. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident it would not be able to meet its published timescales.
The landlord did not raise a works order for the additional repairs recommended by Pest Control until 18 October 2024. The evidence provided shows no reasonable explanation for this delay. The repairs had not been completed by the time of the stage 2 response, on 21 October 2024. The stage 2 response said the works had been booked in for 29 October 2024.
Overall, the evidence suggests a lack of oversight and joined-up working between different individuals and departments within the landlord, as well as poor record-keeping, contributed to the delays.

External works

The resident reported a hole in the external steps leading up to her property as part of her initial complaint 28 July 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord responded promptly, on 29 July 2024, and said its housing officers would inspect the hole in the steps and report their findings to the repairs team.
However, the evidence is unclear regarding if or when this was done. The landlord said in its stage 1 response, dated 14 August 2024, that it visited the estate, together with Pest Control “a few weeks ago.” It said Pest Control was “looking into potential solutions and working with properties experiencing the issue to address the problem.” However, it provided no further detail, and there is no evidence in the repair records provided that a works order was raised to fix the hole in the steps.
On 27 September 2024 Pest Control gave the landlord a list of works in the external areas surrounding the resident’s home, including:
1. Clearing waste.
2. Cutting back vegetation.
3. Filling holes in a wall and re-laying flagstones.
4. Treatment for rats outside the first block of flats, which it would undertake on instruction, at a cost to the landlord. It asked the landlord to raise a works order for this.
Correspondence from Pest Control to the landlord on 8 October 2024 indicates the landlord had not yet completed the recommended works, or raised a works order for Pest Control treatment of the outside areas. On 21 October 2024 (in the stage 2 response) the landlord told the resident it had asked for the outside areas to be treated by Pest Control, but this is not evidenced in the records provided by the landlord. Assuming a works order was raised some time between 8 October 2024 and 21 October 2024, the evidence provided shows no reasonable explanation for the delay.
There is no evidence that any external works had been carried out by 21 October 2024, when the stage 2 response was issued. Overall, the evidence suggests a lack of oversight and joined-up working between different individuals and departments within the landlord contributed to the poor handling of the external works and pest treatment of the outside areas.

Request for rent pause/rebate

On 23 September 2024 the resident, as part of her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, said she could not live at the property until the rat problem was solved, and asked that the landlord pause her rent liability until then.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request until the stage 2 response on 21 October 2024, almost a month later. This was unreasonable as the resident was unable to make an informed decision without knowing whether or not the landlord would pause/refund her rent liability.
Within the stage 2 response the landlord said it was unable to pause or refund the rent payments as it did not deem the property to be uninhabitable. It is noted that Pest Control told the landlord on 21 October 2024 that there was no evidence of current rat activity. However, the landlord did not explain its position that it did not deem the property to be uninhabitable. Given the resident’s reported health concerns and distress, it would have been reasonable for it to do so.

Conclusions regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.

Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation, and the associated repairs overall, a number of failings have been identified:
1. It did not act with sufficient urgency to raise works orders for repairs to the property to prevent rats gaining access.
2. It took at least 49 working days for it to block up the holes under the kitchen sink and in the pantry.
3. It did not act with sufficient urgency to carry out works to the external areas, or to raise a works order for treatment by Pest Control.
4. Apparent lack of oversight and joined-up working within the landlord in relation to its handling of this matter.
5. Lack of clarity and detail within repair records.
6. Delayed responding to request to pause/refund rent liability for over a month, and did not fully explain its position.
As a result of the landlord’s failings the resident experienced significant inconvenience and distress. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to this element of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise.
2. Pay £400 compensation.
3. Conduct a case review.
4. Arrange for an inspection by Pest Control.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its complaints policy. The landlord’s website, accessed on 23 July 2025, says it will acknowledge receipt of complaints at stage 1 within 3 working days. The landlord will respond in full at stage 1 within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. It will acknowledge requests to escalate to stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 3 working days. It will respond in full at stage 2 within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 2 working days, and responded in full after a further 10 working days. This was in line with its published timescales.
It acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2 the following working day, and responded in full a further 19 working days later. This was in line with its published timescales.
It was appropriate that, within the stage 2 response, it apologised for not doing the repairs, and provided a list of works to be done on 29 October 2024. It also provided an update regarding the information it had received from Pest Control, and a partial update the outdoor areas. However, given it had admitted a long delay in carrying out the repairs, it was not reasonable that it said it did not uphold the complaint. It also did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint investigation.
The landlord did, however, demonstrate empathy with the resident. It was appropriate that it offered a referral to a support service, and provided information about self-referral to mental health services.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint, at both stages, within its published timescales. The landlord acknowledged failings, apologised, and showed empathy. Although the landlord did not uphold the complaint, despite admitting it had delayed carrying out the repair works, this is insufficient grounds to make a finding of service failure in relation to complaint handling, as the impact on the resident was not significant.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 1 week of the date of this report, the landlord must directly contact Pest Control to arrange an inspection of the property, to take place at a time convenient to the resident, within the following week. The landlord must report back to the resident and this Service on the findings of the inspection within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Should Pest Control advise of further repairs to be done, the landlord must, within the same report, provide a schedule of works with appointment dates.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £400 for its poor handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation, and the associated repairs.
The landlord must carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement points. The review should incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report. Specific attention should be given to:
1. Delays in raising works orders for repairs to the property, the external areas, and pest treatment of the outside areas.
2. Delay in carrying out repairs, once works orders had been raised.
3. Apparent lack of oversight and joined-up working within the landlord.
4. Lack of clarity and detail within repair records.
The landlord must share a written report of the review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to investigate potential locations of rodent harbourage, including adjacent ground floor properties with gardens.
The landlord to consider setting out its standards and publishing its pest control expectations to residents, and ensuring effective communications between all parties involved in the treatment of rodent infestation.