London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202423640)

Decision
Case ID	202423640
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

The resident reported mice in her property since she moved in, in December 2018.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Pest control and associated proofing works.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the:
1. Pest control and associated proofing works.
2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:

Pest control and the associated proofing works

Failed to complete proofing works to the kitchen. Failed to investigate the need to remove the water tank to complete proofing works. Failed to provide accurate and transparent information to the resident about its decision not to remove the water tank.

Complaint handling

Delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaint procedure. Failed to recognise the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. Failed to respond to all aspects of the complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pest control and associated proofing works. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 19 March 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because we are not satisfied the landlord has completed the proofing works to the kitchen. It has also not investigated if proofing works are required behind the water tank, which it said it would do as part of its stage 1 response. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the kitchen and the water tank cupboard. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must consider the resident’s request for it to remove the water tank and complete proofing works behind it. The landlord must write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the inspection and include the full reasons for any decision it makes about the tank. A copy of the correspondence must be provided to us.	No later than 19 March 2026
5	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure it completes any outstanding proofing work to the kitchen and bedroom cupboard promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed	No later than 02 April 2026
6	The landlord must provide the resident with details on how she can make a claim to its insurance team in relation to the damage caused to her carpets.	No later than 19 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between December 2018 and November 2023	The resident reported mice in her property on multiple occasions. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended regularly and completed some proofing works.
10 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that: There had been mice in her property since she moved in. She had put traps down but it had not resolved the issue. There were entry points behind the water tank in her bedroom. The situation was affecting her mental health. She was having to take a lot of time off work for pest control visits. She wanted to move.
13 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint. It said: It had raised a repair for its pest control contractor to attend. It had asked a supervisor to inspect and investigate what proofing works it needed to complete to stop the mice.
16 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said: It would not remove the water tank. There was no evidence of recent mice activity or sightings at the last visit on 20 December 2023. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of poor complaint handling.
18 January 2024	The resident told the landlord she was not happy because the mice would continue to be a problem until the landlord filled the holes.
9 July 2024	The resident complained that mice were coming from behind the water tank in her bedroom. She asked the landlord to remove the tank.
13 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
27 August 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It was sorry to hear about the distress caused to the resident and her family because of the ongoing pest issues. Its contractor had attended when it had received reports. Its contractor had not found any new evidence of mice in the property in November 2023, December 2023, and August 2024. The contractor had not made any recommendations to remove the water tank at any of its visits. Its decision not to remove the tank was in line with its policy. It apologised that the resident had not received the compensation offered at stage 1 and increased the compensation to £70.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. She said the issues with mice were ongoing. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to: Remove the water tank and complete the proofing behind it. Complete proofing throughout the property to stop the mice getting in. Increase the compensation offered.

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.

Complaint	The handling of pest control and associated proofing works.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repair records show the resident had reported mice in her property intermittently since 2019. However, there was a period between December 2021 and March 2023 when the landlord did not receive any reports about this issue. So, we will focus our investigation on what happened since March 2023.
On 6 March 2023 the resident reported mice in her kitchen, living room, and bedroom. She said she tried putting traps down but had not caught any. The landlord’s repair policy says it is responsible for reports of mice where the resident has been unable to deal with it themselves. In line with its policy, the landlord instructed a pest control contractor. The contractor completed 5 visits and treatments between 8 March 2023 and 19 June 2023.
The contractor found holes under a kitchen unit where mice had chewed through sealant. Mice had taken bait from the traps in the bedroom cupboard. The contractor could not see behind the water tank in her bedroom to check for holes. It recommended the landlord complete proofing works to the kitchen and remove the water tank to proof the area behind and below it. Although the contractor did not recommend any proofing works at its final visit in June 2023, we have not seen any evidence the landlord completed the proofing works to the kitchen. We have also not seen any evidence it considered the contractor’s recommendation to remove the water tank at this time. This was a failing.
The resident reported mice in her bedroom cupboard in November 2023. In line with its policy, the landlord instructed a pest control contractor. The contractor completed 3 visits and treatments between 24 November 2023 and 20 December 2023. The contractor did not find any evidence of mice activity. However, it recommended the landlord remove the water tank to block up any holes at all 3 visits.
In its stage 1 acknowledgement on 13 November 2023 the landlord said it would send a supervisor to investigate the removal of the water tank and what it could do to stop the mice getting into the property. This did not happen. This was a failing.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 10 January 2024. She said the contractor had recommended the landlord remove the hot water tank so it could proof the area behind. The resident told the landlord she had a phobia of mice and the situation was affecting her mental health.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2024 the landlord said it would not remove the water tank. It did not provide a full explanation for this decision. It again said it would ask a supervisor to attend and decide on next steps. Although we can see the landlord raised an internal task for the inspection, it did not go ahead. This was a failing.
After further contact from the resident the landlord said it had reached its decision not to remove the tank because its pest control contractor had not recommended it. It is reasonable that the landlord would want clear evidence of a defect before it carried out repairs or proofing. Whilst we have not seen evidence there was a defect in the water tank cupboard, the landlord’s contractor had recommended it remove the tank to check behind it at a series of visits. The landlord failed to follow its contractor’s recommendation. It then failed to give a clear explanation to the resident for its reasons. This added to the resident’s frustration.
The resident reported seeing mice in her kitchen on 8 July 2024. On 9 July 2024 she told the landlord the mice were coming from behind the water tank in her bedroom. In line with its policy, the landlord instructed a pest control contractor. The contractor completed 3 visits and treatments in the kitchen between 10 July 2024 and 1 August 2024. The contractor found a small amount of droppings in the kitchen. It baited the area. There was no evidence mice had taken the bait and no fresh evidence of mice at its follow up appointments. The contractor did not make any recommendations for proofing. The contractor did not treat the bedroom cupboard at this time. This is because the landlord did not update it following its conversation with the resident on 9 July 2024. The contractor reports show the resident only told it she had seen mice in the kitchen when they visited. However, given that mice were in other areas of the property before, it would have been reasonable for the landlord give the contractor a summary of previous treatments and for the contractor to have enquired about the nature of the resident’s problems. This was a failing.
The resident told us the mice had damaged her carpet and she wanted the landlord to compensate her for this. The resident did not include this issue in her complaint. It has therefore not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure which means we cannot consider it as part of our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with the details on how she can make an insurance claim. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says it will refer alleged damage of personal possessions, because of something the landlord has or has not done, to its insurance team.
Regarding the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
The landlord correctly understood and accepted its responsibilities for pest control and arranged treatments. However, we cannot be satisfied it completed proofing to the kitchen as recommended by its pest control contractor in May 2023. It also failed to send a supervisor to investigate the issue of removing the water tank, as promised at stage 1.
The effect meant the resident continued to worry about mice in the property, which affected her sleep and caused her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for a period of approximately 18 months (from March 2023 until August 2024). The landlord did not do enough to reassure the resident. This leads to a finding of maladministration. To reflect this impact we have ordered the landlord to pay £450 which is in line with our remedies guidance.
We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the kitchen and bedroom cupboard, where the water tank is situated. The landlord must complete any outstanding proofing works to the kitchen. It must also consider if it needs to remove the water tank to complete proofing works. It should write to the resident following its inspection to explain the reason for any decision it makes in relation to the water tank.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2022 edition for stage 1 and the 2024 edition for stage 2. Our findings are:
1. The landlord had a published complaint policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales at each stage.
2. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its policy timeframe. However, it failed to provide its stage 1 response until 44 working days later. This was not in line with its policy or the Code, which allows for 10 working days. Positively, it accepted and apologised for its delayed response, and offered £50 compensation. It then failed to send the compensation to the resident.
3. The landlord failed to address the resident’s request to move in its stage 1 complaint response.
4. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s request to escalate. She had to submit another complaint 6 months later before it agreed to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was a failing which meant it took approximately 10 months for the resident’s complaint to complete the landlord’s complaint procedure.
5. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days, as required by its policy and the Code. It took it 26 days to do so. Positively it apologised for the delay and confusion in paying the compensation at stage 1. It awarded a further £20 compensation.
Due to the failures identified there was maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation (an increase of £130) to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

Learning

The landlord failed to recognise any learning from the resident’s complaint. The landlord should review complaints to identify any service improvements it can make.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping in this case was good in relation to the issues we have considered.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor in this case. Although it completed the pest control visits within a timely manner, there is no evidence that it updated the resident on the outcome of these visits or what the next steps were. The landlord should ensure it has a strategy in place to ensure it keeps residents updated.