Haringey London Borough Council (202439407)

The Decision
Case ID	202439407
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Haringey London Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

The resident first reported problems with mice in the kitchen of his flat in November 2023. He reports that the infestation of mice has persisted throughout the period of the complaint.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of mice in the kitchen.
2. Repairs related to a water-damaged living room ceiling.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of mice in the kitchen.
2. Associated complaint.
We found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Repairs related to a water-damaged living room ceiling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord delayed for over a month before starting the pest control process for mice. The landlord failed to act effectively on its contractors recommendations to block up access holes and work took 9 months to start. On inspection, the landlord concluded that there were no holes to block and closed the repair. The landlord has not told the resident how it is planning to address the ongoing infestation.
The landlord did not deal with the resident’s repair within its own timescale for non-urgent repairs.

There were delays and other failings in the landlord’s complaint responses.

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	Action order The landlord must provide evidence of an action plan to eradicate the mice infestation and prevent its return. It must provide and explain the plan to the to the resident. The plan must include: Clear actions and timescales Adequate communication with the resident Robust and additional measures to those which have already failed	No later than 17 March 2026
2	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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 March 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is made up of: £350 for the impact of delay and distress caused by its response to reports of mice in the kitchen £50 for the impact of delay in completing the repair to the living room ceiling £100 for the delays and failures in complaint handling	No later than 17 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
That the landlord should include more information on its approach to pest control management on its website, including target timescales for beginning treatments.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 August 2024	The resident made a complaint via webform. He complained that: the landlord had not resolved the infestation of mice in the kitchen, which he had reported 10 months earlier in November 2023 multiple operatives who came to carry out repair work (to block up access holes) never had enough time allocated and so nothing had been done the landlord took 45 – 55 minutes to answer his multiple phone calls and did not return his calls, causing frustration the landlord had delayed in carrying out the repair on his living room ceiling
20 September 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said it did not uphold the complaint. It offered apologies in relation to the outstanding repair to block up holes in the kitchen but did not reference the infestation of mice or the other points of the resident’s complaint. It said that the contractor who attended on 5 August 2024 had alleged that the resident had been aggressive. It said that it needed to investigate this allegation before work could continue but it did not give a timescale for this.
20 September 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. In it, he re-iterated the points made in his first complaint, noted that the mice infestation in the kitchen was continuing, and was unhealthy, and that the repair to the living room ceiling was also still outstanding.
10 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in response. it said its inspection on 28 November 2024 showed that the repair to block up holes was not needed because there were no entry points to block and so it consequently closed the repair noted that it had failed to diagnose the problem in good time, agreed it had repeatedly booked appointments for the wrong length of time and apologised for inconvenience found fault with the length of time it had taken to come to this conclusion although noted that an alleged incident with a contractor had caused part of the delay said it would contact the tenancy management team to assist with the pest issue did not reference the other points of the complaint or offer compensation
Referral to the Ombudsman	In the resident’s complaint he said that the mice infestation was continuing, it was impacting on his and his family’s health and wellbeing, including that of a visiting grandchild, and that there were outstanding repairs to the living room ceiling following a leak from the upstairs flat. He wanted a permanent solution the infestation of mice.

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 landlord’s response to reports of mice in the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has an obligation to keep the property fit for people to live in and free from hazards during the term of the tenancy, including preventing pests being able to access the property. This means, where a resident reports a pest infestation, the landlord should investigate to identify if there are any structural defects which allow pests access. If there are, the landlord is responsible for repairing them and for treating the infestation.
The landlord provides free pest control treatment of mice infestation for residents who live in flats and maisonettes and residents can book treatment through the customer services phone number. Its website states that if the pest infestation is affecting more than one property in a block it may be necessary to carry out a treatment for all the flats in the block. There is no target timescale for the eradication of pests.
On 2 November 2023, the resident asked for pest control treatment for mice. Pest control treatment started on 11 December 2023, over 6 weeks later. This was an unreasonably long period of delay.
The initial treatment consisted of three visits to the property, twice in December and once in January to leave poison, in both the kitchen and in the living room. At the third visit on 10 January 2024 the pest control operative advised the resident to book further visits, which he did on 15 January 2024.
Treatment visits continued and on 1 February 2024 the pest control operative told the landlord that although mice were taking the bait, the problem continued and that there were ‘entry points’ allowing mice to get in. The landlord asked its repairs team to block up the gaps in the kitchen.
The landlord raised the repair 2 weeks later, on 15 February 2024, which was another unnecessary delay. The landlord described the repair as a job to ‘block up gaps in kitchen which allows mice access’. The landlord assigned the repair to carpentry and gave it a target of 26 March 2024. The landlord then booked the job for 13 March 2024, which was around 6 weeks after the ‘entry points’ were identified as part of the problem.
The pest control treatment continued and at a visit on 29 February 2024 the pest control operative described the level of infestation as “medium” with ongoing sightings of mice despite the mice taking the bait.
On 12 March 2024, the day before a scheduled visit to carry out the work, the landlord noted that the telephone numbers it had for the resident belonged to people who did not live there. This note could have been an error, as the resident had previously provided a contact number. It is not clear if the landlord’s contractor visited on the scheduled date of 13 March 2024. The landlord raised another repair for the same work on 28 March 2024, to block holes in the wall behind the washing machine. The landlord raised different repair numbers for different trade skills for the same issue which may have contributed to delays.
A contractor attended the property on 3 May 2024. The operative stayed for 1 hour, inspected and said that a further visit of 6 hours was needed to take off the base units to access holes behind the sink unit and corner unit.
The landlord arranged for another visit for the morning of 24 July 2024, over 2 months later. However, the landlord only allocated 1 hour for the visit, not the 6 hours which landlord’s contractor had previously identified as necessary, so again no repair was carried out, which caused further delay. While at the resident’s property, the operative arranged with the landlord to re-book the job for a half day on 5 August 2024 between 8:00 am and 15:59, later confirmed by text to the resident.
On 5 August 2024 a different operative came at 13:14, which did not leave enough time for the 6 hours previously recommended or even the planned half day job. In the resident’s complaint he said the operative who came was not aware of filling holes and thought he was only there for plastering work. The resident thought that either the operative had confused 2 jobs, as there was a plastering repair job to his living room ceiling also outstanding, or he had not been given the correct information. In his complaint the resident said he tried to get the operative to talk to the repairs team while he was there. The operative alleged that the resident was aggressive towards him. Because of this, his team leader took him off the job and he left after an hour without doing any work.
The resident called the landlord the following day, 6 August 2024, to try and make an appointment. Following the call, the landlord noted internally the need to contact the resident following the reported incident of aggression the previous day but did not progress this. The landlord should have begun an investigation straight away to find out what had happened and how to safely progress the work which it still had a responsibility for. In this it acted unreasonably.
Instead, the landlord did not contact the resident until it sent its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024, 7 weeks later. In this response, the landlord said operatives would not come to his property until it had carried out an investigation into the reported incident of aggression. It did not say when this would happen. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 at this point.
This meant that for the period of 7 weeks from the 6 August 2024 onwards the landlord stopped trying to progress a repair which its own contractors had asked for in February 2024. In this time, the resident complained that he contacted the landlord repeatedly with no response, which was unreasonable.
On 26 September 2024 the landlord raised a third repair, not linked to the earlier repairs, this time saying that the ‘tenant reports holes in the external brickwork allowing pests into the property’ which was incorrect, as it was originally the landlord’s contractor who had identified holes. The landlord assigned this job to bricklaying, with a target of 5 November 2024.
It was not until 27 November 2024, after the latest repair target date had passed, that the landlord noted that it had spoken with the resident about ‘how to interact with operatives’ before visiting again. The landlord did not share the outcome of the investigation into the alleged incident of aggression, if one was carried out, with the resident or us.
On 28 November 2024, the landlord visited the property again. It inspected the kitchen, bathroom, cupboards, and exterior of the property. The landlord asked the resident to move the washing machine and then inspected behind the panel and did not find any holes to block up. The resident agreed with this assessment at the time but subsequently said to us that he wanted the landlord to examine the kitchen more thoroughly for access points. The landlord concluded that the stack pipe was the likely entry point for the mice. It said that as there were no visible issues needing repair it would close the job. The landlord closed all the jobs related to blocking access holes on this date.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 December 2024. It acknowledged it had failed to carry out the repair to block up holes in a timely manner and that it had repeatedly booked appointments for the incorrect length of time, and it apologised for these failings. It put responsibility for some of the delay onto the resident for the alleged incident of aggression towards an operative. This was not entirely fair as it had not investigated the alleged incident promptly.
The landlord’s website acknowledges that mice infestation can pose a health risk, especially in kitchens, and that mice can spread disease and infection and potentially cause damage and fire risk by chewing through cables. The landlord delayed progressing its repair and so did not investigate the potential causes of the infestation in a timely way. After the landlord closed the repair in November 2024, there was no evidence that it considered assessing the block or explained to the resident any other steps it planned to take to address the infestation. It did not demonstrate that it took any further action until it provided further pest control between August and September 2025.
Our finding of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of infestation of mice is of maladministration. The landlord does not give a target timescale to begin pest control treatment, but 6 weeks was too long. The landlord took 9 months to address the repair, outside its repairs target of 28 days for non-urgent, agreed appointment repairs. Although the landlord decided that the repair to block access holes was unnecessary, the delay wasted time in progressing resolution of the substantive issue, the ongoing infestation, which it then did not address effectively.
We order the landlord to pay £350 compensation. This in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration and is in line with the landlord’s own compensation methodology for high impact issues.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to repairs related to a water-damaged living room ceiling.
Finding	Service failure

On 2 August 2023 the resident reported a leak from the upstairs flat dripping into his living room, he noted that the leak was containable in a bucket. The landlord dealt with the leak quickly but the resident’s living room ceiling was damaged.
The landlord raised a repair to the damaged ceiling on 29 January 2024. The landlord closed the repair on 25 April 2024, later than its target date of 28 days for a non-urgent repair and finished the work off with decoration in November 2024, at the same time as another job.
Although the repair and the impact of it was relatively minor, the length of time the landlord took to complete it was considerable. It did not offer an apology or compensation for the failure to complete the work on time.
Our finding is of service failure and we award compensation of £50 in relation to the impact of this failure which is within the guidelines of our own compensation policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It should then respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint a week later than its target of 5 working days. It apologised in its acknowledgement for this delay and said its reply would be issued within 20 days of the complaint, rather than 10 days, by 20 September 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024, so within its extended target. The landlord apologised for the failure to complete the repair, but it failed to acknowledge other points in the complaint. It said it did not uphold the complaint but did not say which part of the complaint it meant. In this, its response was not timely and was not clear. It gave incorrect information on which Ombudsman the resident could complain to.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 September 2024 when he received the stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint but sent a holding letter after the response was due on 25 October 2024 saying it would respond by 8 November 2024, which would have given it 36 working days rather than 20 days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 December 2024, 58 working days later. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for the delay in responding. The summary of events it gave did not completely match with other records.
We find maladministration because the landlord responded to the complaint outside of its target timescales at stage 1 and stage 2. It did not respond clearly to all the points of the complaint, and it did not set out a plan to address the substantive point of the complaint. It did not offer any compensation for its delay in responding or its failure to carry out the repair or its failure to deal with the substantive issue of the infestation.
Our remedies guidance expects landlords to make awards of up to £100 where the landlord has not acknowledged its complaint handling failings and this is the amount we have ordered in compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should make sure that it links different repair numbers for the same work.
The landlord could consider reviewing how it stores residents’ contact details.

Communication

The landlord should make sure that it books repair jobs for the correct length of time.
The landlord should get full details of alleged incidents from its contractors and investigate promptly. It should share outcomes with residents.
The landlord should consider how it can reduce call wait times and return residents’ calls in a timely manner.