Southern Housing (202518512)

Background

During 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to say its contractor could not clean the communal water tanks in the communal loft. This was because there was evidence of a rat infestation, including droppings, and they would not work in such conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a rat infestation in the communal loft.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of a rat infestation in the communal loft.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

4. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord may re-charge the resident the cost of pest treatments if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent an infestation. The landlord’s water hygiene policy says it will take precautions to reduce the chance of people being exposed to legionella by managing any risks.
5. The resident has told us that the cleaning of the tanks started on 28 August 2024. He says it was suspended due to a rat infestation. While we do not doubt his account there’s no independent evidence to corroborate events. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response noted that the resident “first reported the loft insulation issue in August 2024”. It’s been unable to provide further details in relation to this which is a record keeping failure.
6. The landlord’s file note dated 17 February 2025 stated that the resident had been incorrectly advised that he was responsible for rats in the communal loft. He’d subsequently paid £45 for pest control treatments. It noted that he’d asked for an update on when the water tanks would be cleaned. There’s no evidence that a response was provided which was inappropriate.
7. On 2 April 2025 the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out works to the water tanks. However, there was still evidence of rat faeces and urine in the loft. The operative would have to crawl through it to reach the tanks. The job was therefore put on hold until the matter was resolved. An order was raised for pest control to attend, noting that works to the tanks were overdue. On 9 April 2025 the pest control operative confirmed that there were no current pest issues and that it had treated the waste material. The contractor advised the landlord that it was not prepared to crawl through the treated waste.
8. While the visit by the pest control operative was positive, it’s unclear why this wasn’t arranged earlier in the process. The landlord’s inaction delayed the necessary works to the water tanks. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment in relation to the delayed clean.
9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately apologised for having given the resident incorrect advice. It agreed to refund the cost of the pest treatments to put things right and offered an additional £80 compensation. This was comprised of £30 for not following its pest control process and £50 for inconvenience. The resident was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered.
10. During May 2025 the landlord arranged to carry out works to remove the contaminated loft insulation. Its evidence shows that it was mindful of the need to prioritise the water tanks due to health and safety concerns. However, there’s no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment. The loft insulation was removed during July 2025. While this was positive, the delay was unreasonably long. It caused distress to the resident and prevented essential health and safety works. The tanks were cleaned and tested on 8 September 2025. This was 7 months after the landlord was first put on notice of the issue, which was unreasonably delayed.
11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 30 September 2025 noted that its stage 1 response had not considered the distress caused to the resident and the impact on his wellbeing. It explained that works to replace the loft insulation were delayed due to miscommunication around appointments, including an operative attending the wrong address. It offered additional compensation of £350. On 15 January 2026 the landlord advised us that it had increased its offer to £490. This included an additional £50 for issues with its payment of compensation and £90 for 2 additional pest treatments.
12. The landlord appropriately refunded the resident’s out of pocket expenses for pest treatments. It also offered compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its delay. Its offer was in line with our compensation guidance which says payments of £100 and above should be paid where the failure adversely affected the resident. Therefore, we consider the landlord has taken proportionate steps to put things right.

Recommendations

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