London Borough of Islington (202331875)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331875

Islington Council

18 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation.

Background

  1. The resident lives with her baby in a 1-bedroom flat in a residential block owned by the local council landlord. The tenancy agreement began in February 2023.
  2. On 27 April 2023, the resident reported mice on the property. The landlord sent pest control on 2 May 2023. They conducted a 3-step treatment, 2 weeks apart. During the third treatment on 30 May 2023, operatives advised the landlord to remove the kitchen cupboards and “proof” behind them (meaning block up any entry points), but the landlord did not raise the job at that time.
  3. The resident raised her formal complaint on 23 August 2023. She said there had been mice problems since moving in which had not been resolved despite the landlord’s efforts. She said that she was concerned about their droppings and other risks the mice posed to her young family.
  4. The landlord responded on 6 September 2023. It acknowledged it had delayed carrying out the proofing work recommended by the pest controllers, which it said had now been completed. It offered the resident £25 in compensation.
  5. In her 28 September 2023 escalation request, the resident repeated her concerns about the ongoing problem, and said the landlord had not followed the advice of its pest control operatives.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 5 October 2023. Operatives removed the worktop and base units, revealing a mouse nest and ingress points. They cleared the area and filled the ingress points. They replaced the worktops and kitchen units on the same day.
  7. In its 19 October 2023 final response letter, the landlord reiterated its stage 1 response and explained the actions it had taken since. It acknowledged its initial delay responding to the operatives’ recommendations, and also In addition to the delay identified in stage 1, it said that the ingress points could have been identified and sealed earlier, for which it apologised. It offered the resident £392 in compensation, including the £25 from stage 1.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 31 January 2024. She said the infestation was ongoing. Her daughter had been sick sporadically and had developed skin allergies, which she believed were a reaction to chemicals used to treat the infestation. She said she felt anxious and depressed and had been staying on her relative’s sofa to avoid her flat. To resolve the issue, she asked that the landlord offer her a new property.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint to us is about her health concerns. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. It will not be considered in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy confirms it provides pest control treatments for residents. These treatments aim to control the infestation quickly and include unlimited treatments until the issue is resolved. In some cases, it may carry out proofing works to seal ingress points. However, the effectiveness of proofing works cannot be guaranteed to resolve the problem.
  2. In this case, upon receiving the resident’s report of mouse infestation on 27 April 2023, the landlord attended within 3 working days on 2 May 2023, in line with the time specified in its policy. Operatives carried out a 3-step treatment, 2 weeks apart, which did not solve the infestation. The resident reported the issue again in June 2023. Pest control treated the property in July, August and September 2023, but the infestation continued.
  3. In her September 2023 escalation request, the resident acknowledged that the landlord had removed the back panel under the sink and sealed the holes around the pipe in August 2023. However, she said pest control officers had told her in May 2023 that the worktop and kitchen units needed to be removed to fully investigate and close all entry points. She said this did not happen.
  4. The evidence confirms the resident’s explanation. It shows the pest controllers recommended to the landlord in May 2023 that itneededto remove the kitchen cupboards for the area around themto be proofed. However, this job was not raised until 5 October 2023.The delay was in contrast to the landlord’s policy of controlling pest problems quickly.
  5. In its final response letter, the landlord accepted the overall delay in carrying out the work and it apologised to the resident. It acknowledged that it should have identified and sealed ingress points at an earlier stage. In recognition of the disturbance to the resident’s enjoyment of her home , it offered her compensation of £392, including the £25 offered in its stage 1 response.
  6. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. The compensation of £392 was is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where a landlord’s failure has adversely impacted a resident but did not have a permanent impact. The evidence shows that pest control officers continued to treat the building regularly, and the landlord continued to follow the advice of its specialists. The landlord confirmed to the Service that the infestation was resolved in May 2024, and there were no further reports from the resident or her neighbours after this date.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s acknowledgement of the initial delay. It apologised and carried out the required work which resolved the infestation. Its compensation offer was fair and proportionate, and in the Service’s opinion, resolved the resident’s complaint reasonably.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodent infestation, satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £392 it offered during its internal complaint process. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.