Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202509724)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a residential building with her 3 young children. She reported pest issues to the landlord in February 2025 and later identified a neighbouring flat as the source.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that the landlord:
   1. Took several appropriate and proportionate steps to resolve the resident’s reports of pest infestations. However, it failed to provide her with the relevant information about claiming for damaged possessions, provided misleading communication regarding the completion of the work and failed to respond to further reports of pests.
   2. Acknowledged its delay in issuing the stage 1 response and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the pest issues has negatively impacted on her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. As a resolution the resident’s complaint, she wants the landlord to evict the neighbour. Our Scheme makes clear that any orders or remedies we make must be fair, proportionate, and within the landlord’s control. In practice this means we will not make orders that would require a landlord to act in a way that could adversely affect the rights or interests of third parties.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s pest control procedure states that:
   1. It will deal with pest infestations in communal areas, resident’s homes and where there is evidence that the pest is entering via a defect to the building.
   2. Upon receipt of a pest control activity report, its pest control contractor (‘the contractor’) will contact the customer by the end of the following working day to arrange an appointment to complete an initial assessment and complete appropriate treatment, usually within 5 working days of the initial referral.
   3. Where household behaviour is identified as a contributary factor to pest issues, there may be a requirement for further investigation and customers may need support to address/rectify these behaviours.
   4. Sometimes it may be necessary to take enforcement action against a customer who repeatedly fails to take appropriate action to prevent pest infestations caused by their lifestyle or behaviour, particularly where the pest control issues are affecting other customers or presenting a health and safety risk to others.
9. In the resident’s complaint, she said she first reported a “severe fly and vermin infestation” on 7 February 2025 and followed up on 13 and 14 February 2025 by telephone. While we do not dispute her account, we have seen no evidence of these reports.
10. The earliest record available states that the landlord referred the fly infestation issue to its contractor on 20 February 2025. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said this was the date the resident first reported the issue. However, it has not provided a record of the resident’s report or a copy of the email sent to the contractor, which is evidence of poor record keeping.
11. The contractor inspected the property the next working day, on 21 February 2025, in line with the landlord’s target timescales. It found no evidence of any serious health risks but identified fruit fly activity in the communal corridor, likely linked to a neighbouring flat, and recommended access to that property to address the source of the infestation.
12. During the visit, the contractor also identified low levels of external rodent activity and recommended repairs and improved rodent proofing. Between 19 March 2025 and 12 March 2026, it attended the building on 24 occasions to address these issues and carried out several proofing works. This demonstrates that the landlord took the pest control issues seriously, acted on the recommendations and in line with its procedure.
13. On 24 February 2025, the resident told the landlord that police had visited the neighbouring flat for a welfare check and confirmed it was the source of the fly infestation, with rubbish and rotting food inside. She said the smell and flies had spread into her home, raised concerns about possible rodents, and confirmed that she had moved out of the property because of the situation.
14. In an email to the resident’s MP (who was supporting her) on 17 March 2025 and in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it contacted the resident to arrange treatment in her property to reduce the number of fruit flies until it could access the neighbouring flat. It said the resident agreed but cancelled the treatment on 14 March 2025 due to concerns about her pets. Although the resident has not disputed this, the landlord has not provided any supporting evidence, which indicates further poor record keeping.
15. Between 25 February 2025 and 24 April 2025, the landlord took appropriate steps within its authority to try to access the neighbouring property and address the root cause of the pest issue. It also made clear to the resident that it could not legally force entry. We therefore consider its position in the stage 1 response—that access issues prevented it from completing the necessary proofing works—to be reasonable in the circumstances.
16. On 2 May 2025, the resident told the landlord she had found mouse droppings in her property, including on her bed. The pest control contractor attended 1 day outside its target timescale and at the visit, it identified a “medium-level” mouse infestation. It then appropriately began the first stage of a 3-part treatment.
17. On 15 May 2025, the resident informed the landlord that mice had damaged her sofa, and she also had to dispose of personal possessions. This was also recorded within the contractor’s inspection report of 12 May 2025. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that she could make a claim on her contents insurance or refer her to its own liability insurers. In March 2026, the landlord told us it had reviewed the case, identified this failure, and offered £300 compensation. While it is appropriate for a landlord to review its actions or recognise the increasing impact of an ongoing issue, an increased offer made after the stage 2 response or following our intervention cannot be considered reasonable redress, even if the amount is proportionate.
18. The contractor reattended the property on 30 May 2025 to undertake the second pest treatment. However, it was unable to gain access and rebooked the appointment for 5 June 2025. During this appointment it identified a “low-level” mice infestation across multiple areas of the property, with minimal droppings found. It located several potential entry points throughout the flat, including in the living room, bedrooms, bathroom, and kitchen, and sealed them. The main entry point appeared to be in the boiler cupboard, where previous ineffective proofing had been installed over carpet, and this was corrected during the visit.
19. Throughout the landlord’s handling of the case, it regularly attempted to reassure the resident that it was continuing to manage the source of pest issue and was committed to resolving it but could not disclose the specifics due to data protection. We accept there are limits on what information the landlord could share that related to a third party.
20. The resident told the landlord on several occasions that she had moved out of the property because of the pest infestations. While the situation was understandably distressing for the resident, the contractor’s inspection records confirmed that none of the visits between February and June 2025 identified any risks to health. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation in its stage 2 response on 10 June 2025 – that it could not reimburse the resident for rent or move her to an alternative property – was fair and based on the evidence available to it at the time.
21. The landlord also stated in its stage 2 response that “progress had been made and [it was] satisfied with the actions carried out that had led to the pest issues being eradicated”. While it had taken some positive steps to address the issues within the resident’s flat, they were not fully resolved as the contractor’s third treatment did not take place until approximately 3 weeks later, on 3 July 2025. Additionally, the access issues to the neighbouring flat to resolve the source of the problem were also ongoing. Therefore, the landlord’s position that the matter was resolved was incorrect and misleading. It was also at odds with the update it provided to the resident’s MP (acting on her behalf) on 11 June 2025. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
22. During the appointment on 3 July 2025, the contractor found mice droppings behind the sofa but no evidence of bait consumption and confirmed that the previous proofing work remained effective. It returned on 21 July 2025 for a final visit, when the resident confirmed no further droppings or sightings. As there is no evidence of any further reports after this date, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord successfully proofed the property against the rodent activity.
23. During the appointment on 3 July 2025, the contractor also identified black ant activity and carpet moths in the living room. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord arranged for a deep carpet clean in the resident’s property on 8 July 2025.
24. After the stage 2 response, the resident continued to request updates on progress in gaining access to the neighbouring property. Although there are limits on the information that can be shared and the issue in the neighbouring flat remains unresolved, we are satisfied that the landlord has taken appropriate and proportionate action and, at the date of this report, continues to pursue the matter through its legal team.
25. However, the landlord did not respond adequately to the resident’s further reports of fruit flies on 10 October 2025, 4 November 2025, and 5 February 2026. While we accept that the likely source remained the neighbouring flat, which the landlord was unable to access, it should still have acted and referred these reports to its contractor and ensured the resident’s home remained safe and free from pests. The lack of response to these reports likely caused the resident frustration.
26. Overall, while we are satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues directly related to the neighbours flat, we have made a finding of maladministration for the reasons set out above. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident the compensation it offered in March 2026. This is considered a reasonable and proportionate amount, in line with our compensation policy.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
28. The landlord’s customer remedies policy states that it will pay compensation to a complainant when it finds evidence of poor administration or complaint handling. However, it does not specify how much compensation it will pay in these circumstances.
29. The resident made a complaint on 11 March 2025, and the landlord acknowledged it within 4 working days, on 17 March 2025, in line with its target timescales.
30. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2025, 26 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint. This exceeded its complaint handling timescales, and we have seen no evidence that it kept the resident informed of the delay or agreed an extension. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer £50 compensation in recognition of this, in line with our compensation policy.
31. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 May 2025, and the landlord appropriately acknowledged this 4 working days later, on 12 May 2025. It is therefore unclear why the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had delayed escalating the complaint and awarded £20 compensation for this. However, this does not amount to a significant failing, as there was no impact on the resident.
32. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, on 10 June 2025.
33. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Complaint handling

34. If the landlord requires an extension to respond to a complaint, it should contact the resident to request this within the required timescales.
35. The landlord should award compensation for complaint handling only where there is clear evidence of service failure and in line with its customer remedies policy.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

36. The absence of key records indicates poor record keeping practices, which limited transparency and made it difficult to verify some of the landlord’s actions.

Communication

37. The landlord’s communication was generally engaged and supportive, but at times inaccurate, inconsistent, and lacking follow-through, which had a negative impact on the resident’s experience.