Peabody Trust (202447643)

Background

1. Between March 2024 and October 2024, the resident reported rats in her loft space.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents reports of pests.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests.
5. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified complaint handling failures.

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

Summary of reasons

Residents reports of pests

6. The landlord failed to ensure that it completed the required proofing works to an appropriate standard. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also failed to demonstrate that it considered all recommendations of the pest control contractor.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord acknowledged complaint handling failures, offered reasonable compensation, and demonstrated learning from its 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.

8. It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for its failings, offered compensation, and confirmed that it had resolved the issue for the resident.
9. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reviewed its repairs history and acknowledged that it had not followed up with recommendations of its pest control contractors to carry out proofing works which caused delay in addressing the issue. The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £450 compensation. It instructed a multi-trade contractor to carry out an inspection, draw up a plan of action, and complete the works. It said it would check with the resident when it completed the work to ensure she was satisfied. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take to put things right for the resident.
11. Before the works began, the resident raised concerns that the pest proofing contractor had not been provided with previous pest control reports which identified the points of entry for the rats. It is not clear if the landlord forwarded the pest control recommendations to the appointed proofing contractor. We were not provided with the plan of action, reports, completion works, or correspondence between the landlord and the contractor appointed to complete the proofing works. This hampered our investigation. However, the evidence indicates that it completed the pest proofing works sometime between 3 February 2025 and 14 February 2025.
12. On 4 March 2025, the resident reported to the landlord that the works were inadequate. In response, the landlord instructed a pest control contractor to inspect the property. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to ensure the quality of the proofing works were adequate.
13. The resident raised concerns that the landlord was instructing a different pest control contractor from the original one that identified the points of entry. This was a valid concern from the resident, as the original contractor could have confirmed if the points of entry it identified had been sealed. However, the landlord explained that due to business needs it may change contractors from time to time and assured the resident that its contractors were skilled to carry out the works. This was a reasonable explanation from the landlord.
14. It is not clear when the follow up pest control appointment took place as we have not been provided with a copy of the survey report. On 8 April 2025, the landlord’s records show that it discussed the attendance with the contractor who said that the resident reported that rats had returned and provided recorded evidence. The contractor logged further proofing works and recommended a CCTV survey of the drains as this was a possible point of entry. It further said it would send through a full scope of works after its next attendance on 14 April 2025.
15. While this indicates that the landlord continued to take action to resolve the issue, we have not been provided with the further survey or scope of works from the contractor and as such, cannot reasonably determine if the landlord took appropriate action to investigate a further potential entry route for the rats.
16. On 1 May 2025, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had not received any further reports of pest control issues from the resident since it completed the proofing works. This was inappropriate. At that point, the contractor had confirmed a further report of rodents in the loft and had raised a work order for further proofing works. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge these outstanding actions in its complaint response.
17. On 7 May 2025, the resident emailed the landlord and disputed that the issue was resolved. She said that its pest control contractors removed all bait boxes that day, but points of entry for the rodents had not been sealed. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to chase its contractor to complete the repair and on 4 July its call notes show that the resident confirmed that it attended to pest proofing works.
18. It is not clear at that point how the landlord satisfied itself that the proofing works were complete to the required standard. It would have been reasonable for it to have instructed the pest control contractor to inspect the proofing works.
19. On 18 November 2025, the resident reported that rats had returned. The landlord appointed the original pest control contractor who attended 5 times between 3 December 2025 and 21 January 2026. It confirmed that 2 areas had not been proofed effectively and provided images of the areas that required proofing. This demonstrates that the landlord had not completed the works to a reasonable standard.
20. The landlord’s failure to ensure that it completed the works to an appropriate standard caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have made a compensation order of £200 for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our compensation guidance where a failing has had an adverse effect on the resident with no permanent impact.

21. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
22. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 7 working days beyond its timescales. It provided its stage 1 complaint response 7 working days beyond its timescales. It provided its stage 2 complaint response 50 working days beyond its timescales. The evidence shows that the resident went to significant time and trouble when escalating her complaint. She contacted her local MP and the CEO of the landlord to chase a stage 2 complaint response.
23. The landlord apologised for these failings and offered £50 for time and trouble in its stage 1 complaint response and £150 for time and trouble caused in its handling of its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had since made internal changes to its complaints processes to meet the level of complaints it was receiving. These were reasonable steps to put things right for the resident when it identified complaint handling failings.

Learning

Repairs and maintenance

24. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:

1. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
2. maintain good relationship management with its contractors and monitor work in progress.

25. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord considered the resident’s feedback or inspected the quality of the work. A co-ordinated approach to the original works with joint attendances from the pest controller and the proofing works contractor could have ensured that the quality of work was appropriate. If a joint visit was not possible, the landlord could have shared the pest control report with the proofing contractor to ensure it attended to the correct areas.
26. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. This investigation was hampered by the landlord’s record keeping. We were not provided with surveys from the contractor who carried out proofing works or the pest control contractor who inspected the proofing works. The evidence also indicates that the landlord’s complaint handling was impacted by poor record keeping.
28. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.