Notting Hill Genesis (202420136)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420136

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 September 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ongoing reports of pests.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2023. Her property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat in a converted, Victorian property. The resident lives in her property with her young son. There are 4 flats in the building.
After the resident reported that she could hear mice, the landlord arranged for a pest controller (pest controller A) from October 2023 to monitor and bait.
On 8 July 2024, the resident raised a complaint about a persistent mice infestation within the walls and ceiling of her property. She believed the mice were entering from an opening in the flat roof above her bedroom.
On 29 August 2024, the landlord sent the stage 1 response and said the following:
1. It noted the resident had raised a previous complaint on 4 June 2024. However, pest controller A had advised it that the resident on 20 June 2024 had declined an appointment for treatment. This was because a neighbour in a ground floor flat had not provided access to the drains. It had therefore written to the resident on 16 July 2024 to advise it had closed this complaint.
2. It noted it had met with the resident on 30 July 2024 following her new complaint. It had agreed for a different pest controller (pest controller B) to attend, which they did on 12 August 2024. Pest controller B confirmed movement in the void spaces of the resident’s property and said they required an inspection hatch to inspect the space.
3. It agreed to raise a roof repair. This was to ensure the flat roof was watertight and secure, with no cracks or gaps.
4. It offered £100 for the delay in the complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 September 2024 and said the following:
1. Pest controller A was ineffective, especially as the ground floor flat refused to co-operate. Also, another neighbouring tenant had confirmed mice in his flat, but stated he would deal with it himself.
2. There had been no action since a visit by pest controller B on 19 August 2024 as they were waiting for a response to their quote for a hatch.
3. She was concerned that installing a hatch and using poisons in the ceiling space would mean mice would die and rot there, causing smells.
4. She was now hearing mice in the walls and ceiling of the second bedroom and living room.
On 19 March 2025, the landlord sent the stage 2 response. It stated the following:
1. Pest controller B had confirmed mice within the ceiling. They had installed 2 baiting hatches. They would send another report after a visit of 20 March 2025.
2. It was working with and implementing the recommendations of pest controller B and would update the resident.
3. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue with the mice and for taking 3 months to respond to the stage 2 complaint.
4. It offered £250 for the inconvenience from the delay in resolving the issue and £50 for the inconvenience from its delay in providing feedback. It offered £100 for the delay in the stage 2 response.
On 12 June 2025, the resident advised the Ombudsman the following:
1. She did not want further baiting in her property as she did not want dead mice rotting below the roof. She wanted alternative action by the landlord and for it to close all access points into the roof.
2. She thought the landlord should take stronger action against her neighbours to ensure the property was baited and access points closed.
3. She wanted clarification on whether the infestation was an issue before her tenancy began.
4. She wanted compensation for the distress, including sleepless nights.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has advised that the ongoing presence of mice in the building has affected her and her child’s mental wellbeing. Whilst the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have caused and had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Courts of law can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. The landlord’s liability insurer can also consider medical evidence and settle claims. However, the Ombudsman can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble arising from a landlord’s service failure.

Reports of pests

The landlord’s Pest Control Policy states, “Due to the potential rapid spread and associated and identified health risk from …, mice and rats NHG takes responsibility for treatment of these pests in individual residents’ homes as well as in communal areas.” The landlord therefore had an obligation to arrange treatment for the mice following the resident’s reports of mice.
The resident has advised that she initially reported hearing mice in the ceiling of her bedroom after moving in. In this case, following her initial reports, the landlord commissioned pest controller A to carry out baiting, in line with its policy. Pest controller A’s reports show they attended on 5 October 2023, 18 October 2023, and 3 November 2023. In a further report on 10 April 2024, they noted they could apply treatment behind a vent panel. The resident has advised the Ombudsman she did not want this as pest controller A would have to break the seal, which risked mice entering her property.
On 16 April 2024, the resident advised the landlord she thought mice were gaining access through an opening in the roof. Therefore, the proposed solution of placing traps did not address the central issue. She asked the landlord to inspect and complete proofing works. The landlord agreed to visit on 26 April 2024; however, there is no evidence the visit took place or that the landlord otherwise responded to the resident’s request for works.
The Pest Control Policy states, “When the resident reports the problem, the Local Officer will arrange for an inspection and any necessary works with an approved contractor through Workwise.” The policy also states, “If pests are entering the property due to structural problems with the building, …, the case will need to be referred to a Surveyor …, to carry out an inspection and determine what work is needed. … If the pests entered due to a structural problem, repairs and treatment will need to be arranged.” The resident had reported mice within the structure of the building. Therefore, under the policy, a surveyor should have inspected to identify any works to prevent mice entering the building after her initial reports. The landlord missed a further opportunity to inspect after pest controller A on 3 November 2023 recommended “proofing of cavities”. The landlord compounded this failure by not completing the planned visit of 26 April 2024.
Following the resident’s complaint of 4 June 2024, the landlord agreed to obtain another report from pest controller A and act on their recommendations. It also agreed to involve a surveyor, if needed. However, on 2 July 2024, pest controller A advised it the resident had declined to make an appointment. This was because the ground floor flat had not given them access to check the drains. The landlord on 16 July 2024 advised the resident it had closed the complaint, as the resident had refused further treatment.
In response, the resident noted the landlord had agreed to speak to the resident in the ground floor flat to arrange access to the drains but had not done so. She also noted it had not inspected the roof and there was no access to the ceiling void. After the meeting of 30 July 2024, the landlord agreed to carry out roof works. While this decision was in line with the policy, the landlord had delayed in considering roof works.
The landlord also did not address the resident’s request for the drains to be inspected. This was unreasonable, especially as contractor A first wanted access to the drains the previous year.
On 31 August 2024, a subcontractor completed works to the flat roof, having agreed the appointment with another resident for access. Their report confirmed it sealed a potential entry point for mice on the edge of a fascia board with mastic, covered with lead. They also sealed “a few small holes”, areas of lead flashing above the gutter, and the edge of the roof. The subcontractor also completed repointing works. Through ordering these works, the landlord took appropriate steps to prevent mice entering the building structure through the flat roof. However, as stated, it missed opportunities to complete the works sooner.
Also, at the meeting of 30 July 2024, the landlord agreed to commission pest controller B. The resident advised she did not think pest controller A could eradicate mice within the walls and ceiling; they only baited within the bedroom. Given her concerns, it was prudent that the landlord agreed to employ a different pest controller.
Pest controller B attended the resident’s property on 12 August 2024 and 2 September 2024. They confirmed movement in the void spaces of the property. They recommended they install an inspection hatch so they could inspect the void space above the ceiling. They confirmed they would provide a quote for the inspection hatch. Pest controller B provided a quote for 2 hatches on 16 October 2024 after the landlord chased it up. The landlord agreed the quote on the same day.
A subsequent exchange of correspondence shows the resident did not initially agree for the hatches to be installed, and escalated her complaint. She stated that installing a hatch and using poisons in the ceiling would mean mice would die and rot in cavities, causing smells. The landlord sought further advice from contractor B and exchanged further correspondence with the resident between 8 and 11 November 2024. It confirmed that mice would not be killed instantly but if dead mice did cause a smell, it could not do anything about it. It also confirmed that contractor B could use non-toxic baits. Given the expertise of pest controller B, it was reasonable that the landlord followed their recommendation and further advice. It was appropriate that it conveyed this information to the resident so she could make an informed decision regarding baiting in the ceiling void.
A report by pest controller B dated 11 November 2024 confirms they installed a hatch on that date and observedmouse droppings in the void. On 15 November 2024, pest controller B asked the landlord to raise a 3-part job so they could put “measures in place”. It stated it would speak to the resident about “using non-toxic” treatments .
At the first of the visits, on 17 December 2024, pest controller B noted the resident did not want rodenticides applied in the ceiling. They therefore put down non-toxic tracking gel. At a further visit on 31 January 2024, pest controller B noted the resident said that the mice activity had impacted her mental health and created “high levels of anxiety and insomnia”. They decided they would need to expose ceilings through the property to ascertain ingress points and to widen the scope of their investigation. After another visit on 20 March 2023, contractor B reiterated that they would like to open the ceilings up.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to pest controller’s B request to open up the ceilings and widen the investigation. This was unreasonable as it was relying on pest controller B to resolve the issue of mice. Moreover, the resident had reported there was mice in other properties (even if those tenants had not approached the landlord). Therefore, it was especially important that the landlord consider pest controller B’s request to widen the investigation. Also, at this point, the resident had refused treatment, therefore pest controller B had only monitored mice activity, not taken steps to eradicate them. Again, this made it important to consider the other actions recommended by contractor B.
On 10 June 2025, Environmental Health wrote to the landlord. They confirmed the resident would now like a course of treatment to proceed. A report from contractor B dated 3 September 2025 confirms this is still ongoing. However, they also recommended the landlord explore proofing works, in particular to cavities of the main bedroom ceiling. We have noted this recommendation in arriving at the orders on this complaint.
In summary, the landlord followed its Pest Control Policy by commissioning pest controllers. It was also reasonable that it followed the pest controllers’ recommendations regarding baiting. However, the landlord delayed in inspecting the property and in arranging proofing works to the flat roof. The landlord also did not address the resident’s request for the drains to be inspected. It also failed to consider pest controller’s B request to widen the investigation by opening up ceilings and taking further steps to identify ingress points. For these reasons, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord regarding this complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered a total of £300 for its accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of mice. While we do not doubt the landlord’s intentions to resolve the complaint, we do not consider the offer was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. We have considered the length of the delays with the importance to investigate and complete works to prevent mice entering the building. We have also considered that the landlord’s award did not reflect all the failings identified in this investigation. We therefore award the resident £500 compensation. In reaching this award, we have referred to the financial remedies table in our Remedies Guidance. In particular, we have considered the level of redress for cases of maladministration. This covers cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure states it should log a complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 10 working days of logging a stage 1 complaint. It will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and send the response within 20 days of the complaint escalation.
After the resident raised her complaint on 8 July 2024, the landlord did not meet its time scale for responding to complaints at stage 1. It sent its response of 29 August 2024, 5 weeks after the deadline within the complaints procedure. In the stage 1 response, it apologised and offered £100 compensation. Its Compensation Policy states it may offer compensation up to £100 if service standards have not been met / the issue has taken slightly longer than expected causing some inconvenience to the resident. This award was in line with the policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 September 2024. The landlord responded on 19 March 2024. Therefore, at stage 2, the landlord took 6 months to respond which exceeded the target timeframe by 5 months. While it offered £100 compensation in the stage 2 response, this was for taking 3 months to respond to the complaint. However, the offer did not reflect the circumstances of the case as it had, in fact, taken the landlord 6 months to respond. Moreover, there is no evidence the landlord mitigated the delay by sending holding responses or explaining to the resident the reasons for the delay. It also did not reply to an email sent by the resident of 9 January 2025 seeking an update on her complaint. Therefore, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
An internal email sent on 5 March 2025 noted the resident had pursued the response to her complaint. It noted the resident wanted a “proper” investigation of the infestation, including access points and compensation. It further noted she wanted, “Full disclosure on whether this was a pre-existing issue before my tenancy began”. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition.” The landlord should have therefore made clear if it would provide this information.
In summary, the landlord did not offer sufficient redress at stage 2 and omitted to answer an aspect of the resident’s complaint. We therefore find that there was service failure in its complaint handling. We order that it pay a further £100 compensation which makes a total award of £300. In reaching this award, we have referred to the financial remedies table in our Remedies Guidance. In particular, we have considered the level of redress for cases of service failure. This covers cases where the landlord may have made an offer of action/compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and/or is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ongoing reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £800 comprising:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of pests.
  2. £300 for her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the failings in its complaints handling.
  3. The landlord may deduct any compensation paid during the complaints process.
2. Confirm to the resident and this service whether it will be conducting further investigations into the mice infestation and instruct the pest controller accordingly. This should include making clear whether it will:
  1. open ceilings in the building
  2. identify and proof any further access points
  3. seek to inspect the drains and
  4. investigate whether there is mice activity in other flats/parts of the building/external areas.
3. Complete a review of this case. At a minimum, it should consider the below list of failings and identify what improvements it might make and bring into its day-to-day operations:
  1. The delays in identifying and completing works and inspections, and how it could have avoided or mitigated them.
  2. Its failings in updating and communicating with the resident.
  3. The delays in its complaint handling.
  4. Whether there are additional issues and learning from this case that can inform any future review of the pest control policy.
  5. The landlord must complete the review of the case within 4 weeks of the date of this report and share it with the Ombudsman.