Nottingham City Council (202343452)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat within a block. She reported that rats were nesting externally and were also in the cavity of her walls, ceilings, and floor. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and the issue remains unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of rats.
3. The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:

• No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats.
• No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord attended to inspect the resident reports of rats and could not find evidence of any access points. It worked with the council’s pest control service to address the resident’s concerns.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

What we have not looked at

7. We have not considered the actions of the pest control service because the landlord does not carry out this work. It is provided by the council’s pest control team. We can only investigate complaints about a landlord services. Complaints about council services are dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. If the resident remains unhappy about the actions taken by the pest control service, she can raise this directly with her council. We have considered the landlord’s response to the residents reports of rats and if this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

What we have looked at

8. We will consider events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response in February 2024. We consider this approach fair and reasonable because it allows us to assess whether the landlord continued to respond to the concerns the resident raised in her complaint. Where issues continued after that date, we will assess whether the landlord has addressed them or is taking appropriate action to do so.
9. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about rats nesting in overgrown trees near her home on the 10 October 2023 by email. The landlord responded the next day. It said it had arranged for the trees to be cut back and had passed the pest concerns to the council’s pest control team. This prompt response would have provided some reassurance at a time when the resident felt worried about pests close to her home.
10. A week later the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord said that if rats were nesting in the trees, cutting them back should resolve the issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to try to reassure the resident, who was concerned about the situation. Despite explaining the proposed works the landlord did not provide a timeframe for this. Doing so would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and resolved the query at first point of contact, in line with its commitment in its Complaint Policy.
11. On 25 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord because she believed there were rats under her floors. The landlord responded the following day and said it would raise an inspection request with its repairs team. The landlord’s Customer Service Standards say it will respond to email enquiries within 5 working days. While the landlord replied promptly, it did not raise the inspection request until 9 working days later. The inspection then took place on 5 December 2023. The repairs policy says the landlord will attend repairs at the first available appointment and, in any event, within 30 working days. Although the inspection happened 4 working days outside this timeframe, this did not change the overall outcome and any inconvenience to the resident would have been short-lived.
12. On 27 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to place her back on the council’s rehousing waiting list, as she found the situation in her home distressing. The landlord responded by advising her to register for a move through choice‑based lettings or to consider a mutual exchange. This advice followed the landlord’s allocations policy. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concern about possible rats in her home or explain what it would do if it identified a more serious issue. Clearer information may have reassured the resident about how the landlord would respond if it found a pest infestation.
13. On 19 December 2023 the resident complained because she was unhappy that the pest issue was ongoing and she could still hear rats in her home. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response it had attended at the next available appointment and was arranging for a contractor to check the drains. It apologised and upheld her complaint. This was a reasonable response because the landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident and confirmed further action.
14. Following advice from the council’s pest control team, the landlord arranged for a contractor to check the drains. We have not seen any records showing when the landlord raised or completed this work. However, in its complaint response, the landlord confirmed it told the resident that the contractor did not identify any defects or signs of rat entry. While the landlord acted reasonably by following expert advice, the lack of records means we cannot fully assess how quickly it took this action. This limited the reassurance the resident could have received at the time about whether the landlord had investigated her concerns promptly.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained to the resident that it does not provide pest control itself. It said it works with the council’s pest control service to check for access points and carry out any related repairs where needed. As the pest control service did not identify any entry points for rats, the landlord said there were no repairs for it to complete. The landlord had also explained this arrangement to the resident when she first reported seeing rats. This was a reasonable explanation of the landlord’s role and limitations. It helped clarify what action the landlord could take and why responsibility for pest treatment sat with the council rather than the landlord.
16. The resident remained unhappy and asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. It explained that, because there was no evidence of rats, it could not consider a temporary or permanent move. This was a reasonable position based on the evidence, though we understand this would have been disappointing for the resident, who continued to feel unsettled in her home.
17. This situation has understandably caused the resident distress and frustration, and she feels the issue remains unresolved. However, our role is to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in the circumstances, and in line with its policies and procedures, based on the evidence available. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that the building is constructed using no‑fines concrete, which does not contain cavities where pests would usually live. It also confirmed that no other residents in the block had reported pest issues. These checks were appropriate and showed the landlord considered whether the problem affected the wider building before deciding what action it could take.
18. After the stage 2 complaint response, the resident continued to report that she could hear rats in her home. The landlord responded and said it had checked for access points but had not identified any. It advised the resident that if she had evidence of rats entering her property, she could report this directly to the repairs team. This response was reasonable because the landlord explained what checks it had already completed and set out what further information it needed to take action.
19. On 24 June 2024, the landlord carried out a further drain review. The inspection did not identify any rat activity. This was an appropriate step, as it showed the landlord continued to investigate the resident’s concerns and check whether there were any access points it needed to address.
20. The resident contacted the landlord again to say she found the noise she believed to be rats terrifying and distressing, and she asked to be moved. On 31 July 2024, the landlord replied to her email about these ongoing concerns. The landlord asked the resident to continue reporting any issues to the council’s pest control service in the first instance, as it had not identified any repairs issues. It explained that the floors in the property are concrete and that rats cannot access the area beneath them. The landlord also said that, as there was no evidence of rodent activity, it did not consider there to be a risk to the resident’s health. For this reason, it said it would not move her on health grounds. This response showed the landlord explained its position and the reasons for its decision.
21. After this contact, the landlord worked with the council’s pest control service to explore whether there was anything further it could do to address the resident’s concerns. On 12 August 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that it had found no evidence of rat activity either inside or outside the property and, for this reason, it could not treat the issue. The pest control team offered to cut an access hole in the plasterboard to place bait inside the property to check for any activity. It also asked the resident to record the noises she was hearing and share the recordings so it could assess them. These steps showed the landlord working with the pest control service continued to look for ways to investigate the resident’s concerns, even though earlier checks had not identified any rat activity.
22. The landlord planned to attend the property with the council’s pest control team in August 2024 to check the walls. However, before the visit took place, the resident said the noise she believed to be rats was now coming from the floor. As the floor is solid concrete, the pest control team confirmed there was no further action it could take. This explanation showed the landlord considered the updated information the resident provided and checked whether any further investigation was possible.
23. The resident confirmed to us that the issue has continued and that both the landlord and the council’s pest control service have attended since then. She said that, despite these visits, no further action has been taken to resolve the problem. The evidence shows the landlord generally responded promptly when the resident reported concerns. Although there was a slight delay at the outset, the landlord arranged inspections, carried out further checks, and worked with the council’s pest control service. It explained its role and limitations and, overall, acted within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. These actions were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s obligations. The landlord has continued to respond to the resident’s reports and communicate its position.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The landlord responded to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within its policy timescales. This was appropriate and would have provided some reassurance to the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. There is evidence of good record-keeping in this case. The landlord kept records of inspections, pest control advice, and complaint responses.

Communication

27. The landlord could improve communication by providing specific dates for works which will prevent repeated contact.