Orbit Housing Association Limited (202226838)

Background

1. The resident reported rats in the communal loft above his flat in October 2022.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of rats.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to follow its pest control procedure, causing significant and repeated delays to resolve the rat infestation and potential health risk. It also delayed completing related recommended proofing works. Its offer of compensation was insufficient given the significant impact of these failings.
6. The landlord failed to respond within complaints policy timescales. It did not acknowledge these failings or reasonably investigate its actions between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses to accurately offer an updated compensation amount and acknowledge its further failings.

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.

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.

7. The resident told us that the living conditions affected his health and that he lost his employment as a result of the pests. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to pursue a personal injury, or loss of earnings, claim through the courts or an insurance process. These bodies are best placed to consider matters of causation, medical evidence, and the extent and duration of any injury or consequential loss. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident alleged that the pest problem was ongoing before he moved into the property. The landlord has provided evidence of pest control reports for the area prior to the resident’s tenancy start date. We have seen no evidence that there were any reports of pests in the area for over a year before the resident’s tenancy started. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the pest issue resolved by that point and we have only investigated events following the resident’s initial report of rats.
9. The landlord’s pest control procedure says it will instruct a qualified contractor to survey and assess the threat to health. It will contact the resident within 7 working days, or 4 hours if it considers the report an emergency and instruct the survey in that time. It will complete the survey within 5 working days of the works order, and the contractor must submit a report (with costs for additional works required) within 2 working days. It notes that it may sometimes need additional quotes. It will instruct works to begin within 7 days of being notified of the issue.
10. The resident reported rats in the communal loft above his flat in October 2022. The landlord issued a works order to repair holes in the roof in November 2022, which it could not complete due to the presence of rats. This was a failure to follow its pest control procedure by instructing a survey and risk assessing. During November 2022, the resident chased the landlord repeatedly for an update on the works and it was unreasonable for it to continue to fail to work in line with its pest control procedure and not recognise and risk assess a hazard listed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
11. The landlord eventually instructed a pest control contractor to survey the site. They visited in December 2022, confirming heavy rat activity and quoted for the work required. The resident repeatedly chased for an update on the works throughout December 2022, highlighting the clear distress and inconvenience these delays were causing. The landlord advised him it was seeking a second quote, and a further survey was carried out in January 2023. Though it is reasonable for a landlord to seek additional quotes to establish value for money, the continued delay of over a month was excessive and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
12. Despite 2 survey reports confirming the heavy presence of rats and the required work, the landlord failed to action this appropriately and it did not complete initial treatment visits until May 2023. This delay was unreasonable. It was well outside its 3-week procedure timeframe and excessive in the case of a confirmed hazard.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response in May 2023 recognised its failure to take appropriate initial action on the resident’s reports of rats. It confirmed concerns about the first quote had caused the delay in works starting. It offered compensation of £70 for the delay in ordering the work, £135 for the distress and inconvenience and £70 for failed appointments.
14. Though it was positive that the landlord went beyond its compensation policy in awarding compensation for missed appointments, it did not recognise the full impact of its failings. Its compensation policy says it will consider whether a customer has lived in poor conditions longer than is reasonable due to its failure to deal with repairs satisfactorily.
15. The resident had repeatedly said the smell in his property was overwhelming, the noise and distress was affecting his sleep, and he did not feel it was safe to use his kitchen due to the strong smell of rat urine and faeces. The combined £205 for the delay and inconvenience did not appropriately recognise the continued failings or the impact on the resident over the course of 6 months.
16. The landlord had arranged to remove the loft insulation in June 2023, following the completion of treatments and a confirmation report that there were no more pests. However, the attending contractor confirmed it could not carry out this work as there were still pests present. It had been reasonable for the landlord to rely on the report of the contractor that there were no more pests. It acted promptly and actioned a further survey from a different contractor the same month. This was appropriate.
17. This survey recommended a CCTV drainage survey to address potential access routes for the rats. The landlord failed to action the works identified until February 2025. This was well outside the 3 week timescale to start works from its pest procedure. The contractor had confirmed the pest problem would likely continue until it resolved all the access points.
18. The pest control contractor confirmed that the were no more signs of pests in July 2023 and the landlord appropriately issued a works order to repair the holes in the roof in August 2023. It did not complete this job until December 2023. This was an excessive delay and meant there was a risk of another infestation. This was partly mitigated by contractors raising additional concerns once they were on site and arranging follow on visits.
19. The contractor did not remove the insulation and disinfect the loft until December 2023. They completed the insulation replacement 52 days later. During the loft work, there was minor damage to the ceiling. The landlord actioned those repairs appropriately.
20. The landlord’s April 2024 stage 2 response confirmed it had resolved the pests and recognised its failings at stage 1. It said the compensation offered was fair but increased this by a further £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience. This level of compensation was not sufficient. It failed to take into account the continued delays from June 2023 to February 2024 in replacing the insulation, additional delays in related proofing works to the roof and drains as well as the further visits and inconvenience this caused the resident. It also did not recognise the 52 days during winter that the resident spent without sufficient loft insulation.
21. Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats. It repeatedly failed to act in line with its own pest control procedure, did not treat the confirmed rat activity as a serious health hazard, and allowed excessive delays at multiple stages. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, including time without adequate insulation during winter months. The compensation it offered did not fully recognise the impact and duration of its failures. We order the landlord to pay £600 compensation in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had a significant impact on a resident.

22. Landlords must handle complaints in line with their own policies and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The 2022 and 2024 versions of the Code say landlords should have a 2-stage complaint process and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s policies mirror these timescales.
23. The resident has told us he complained in February 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it received the complaint but in March 2023 it signposted the resident to the contractor to complain. This was unreasonable. It sent its stage 1 response in May 2023. This was outside the required timeframes and the landlord did not give a reason for the delay. It confirmed within its stage 1 response that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
24. The landlord failed to action this escalation and it did not send a stage 2 response until April 2024, 11 months later. This was an unreasonable delay outside of its policy which it failed to recognise within the response. It also failed to fully investigate its handling of the proofing works and loft insulation following the stage 1 response. This was a missed opportunity to take a resolution focussed approach. This failure continued to undermine the landlord and tenant relationship and caused the resident time and trouble in chasing a response.
25. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures that had a significant impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord should have robust processes in place to ensure it acts in line with its pest control procedure. It should ensure it completes surveys, treatments, and preventative works within the set timescales, with risks accurately assessed and clearly recorded, particularly where issues fall under HHSRS. Effective oversight of contractors and timely decision making where it requires further quotes are essential to prevent prolonged poor living conditions.

Communication

27. Poor communication and lack of effective coordination between teams can contribute to service failure. Initially, communication with the resident was inconsistent and unclear. The absence of a clear lead meant there was a lack of follow up action and it did not share information effectively. Once it had established a main point of contact, communication improved, resulting in clearer updates, proactive chasing and more timely responses.