Arun District Council (202501093)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord failed to take suitable action to address roof leaks, resulting damp and mould, and a rat infestation in the property. She complained it then made errors which unnecessarily delayed the progress of her management move. She also complained that it failed to take any action to mitigate the ongoing impact of the infestation, damp and mould, or roof issues. The resident’s 3 children have vulnerabilities related to mental health conditions and special educational needs. In February 2026 she accepted the landlord’s offer of a newly available property and is presently waiting for a move-in date.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
   1. A faulty roof and associated damp and mould.
   2. A rat infestation.
3. It is also about how the landlord handled:
   1. The resident’s management transfer.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
      1. A faulty roof and associated damp and mould.
      2. A rat infestation.
   2. The resident’s complaint about her management transfer is not within our jurisdiction.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of a faulty roof and resulting damp and mould in accordance with its policies or Right to Repair regulations. It failed to consider temporary works to mitigate the ongoing impact of these issues on the resident and her family while she waited to move to her new home.
6. The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of rat infestation and contamination in the property in accordance with its policy. It also failed to consider whether timescales under Awaab’s Law applied following the resident’s report of rat droppings throughout the property in November 2025.
7. The resident’s complaint about her management transfer relates to decisions made by the local authority (LA) about her banding priority for housing transfer. This complaint is more suitably addressed by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints of this nature. Therefore, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.
8. The landlord appropriately mitigated the impact of stage 2 complaint handling delays by providing updated timescales and explanations as per its policy. However, it mistakenly issued 2 contradictory final responses. This was not in line with its policy.

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.

Faulty roof.

9. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement, and therefore the landlord is obligated to complete repairs within the timescales set out in Right to Repair regulations. These regulations explain landlords should respond to reports of roof leaks within 7 working days.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete complex works, such as roof repairs requiring scaffolding, within 60 working days. It also explains it will keep residents updated about the progress of works.
11. The resident first reported that there were holes in the roof on 3 January 2024. She reported that this was allowing water into her children’s bedrooms and the hallway. Despite this, the landlord took no action to address her concerns until it inspected the property 11 months later on 11 December 2024. This delay was unacceptable and exceeded the regulations by at least 323 days.
12. On 11 December 2024 the landlord identified a leak from the chimney and diagnosed there was insufficient insulation throughout the loft. The contractor advised that the overall condition of the roof was poor and needed replacing. The landlord decided to schedule these works via its planned programme for the 2025/26 financial year. It then advised the resident of this in its 14 January 2025 stage 1 response. It also committed to consider a temporary repair in the meantime.
13. However, following this, it failed to consider a temporary repair to address the leaks or lack of insulation. We accept that replacing the roof was a complex job and required substantial planning. However, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure of the property as per the tenancy agreement and Right to Repair regulations. Therefore, we would expect it to have followed through on its commitment to at least attempt a temporary repair. Its failure to do so here was a missed opportunity to mitigate the ongoing impact of the faulty roof on the resident and her family.
14. Over the next 2 months the resident continued to report leaks and difficulty heating the property due to the lack of insulation. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord considered completing any temporary repairs. In its stage 2 response on 10 March 2025, it was unable to provide any timescales for when the roof would be replaced. It also offered no further commitments to consider temporary repairs. Given it agreed to do so at stage 1, it is unclear why it abandoned this strategy of managing the situation until the replacement.
15. The landlord committed to update the resident on when the roof would be replaced, and to explore a temporary decant if this was likely to be delayed. We can see the landlord then offered to temporarily rehouse the resident on 17 March 2025. The resident declined this offer due to the issues this would pose her children due to their vulnerabilities. In any case, the landlord acted positively by offering to facilitate this. It then raised works to replace the roof on 25 March 2025.
16. However, its contractor had advised it needed to do so on 11 December 2024 and so it is unclear why it took 3 months to raise this. There is no evidence in the records to explain this delay, and we therefore consider it was unreasonable. By this stage it had already exceeded its complex repairs timescales by 10 working days.
17. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 31 March 2025 and advised that the roof replacement would commence immediately and take 5 weeks to complete. The works did not commence as advised, and there is no evidence the landlord offered any updates to explain why until over a week later. This was not in keeping with its repairs policy.
18. In a meeting on 9 April 2025 the landlord advised the resident that it had completed a risk assessment and could not put scaffolding up at the property. It explained this was due to the high-risk that the scaffolding could pose her son due to his symptoms of self-harm and suicidal ideation. By this stage it had approved a management transfer to a new property, and it advised her that it would postpone any roof works until she had left.
19. We do not dispute that the scaffolding may have posed a risk to the resident’s son, and we note the resident appears to accept the landlord’s assessment of this risk. However, there are no records related to the landlord’s decision making here. Therefore, we are unable to see how it reached this view. This does not persuade us that the landlord reached this decision soundly.
20. In any case, even if we were to accept that the risk assessment was sound, there is no justification for the landlord’s continued failure to consider temporary repairs.
21. Over the following month the resident asked the landlord on multiple occasions whether it intended to complete temporary repairs until she could be moved to a new property. On 9 May 2025 the landlord advised it had decided to hold off “on all repairs” until she had been moved. The landlord then took no action related to the roof issues for the rest of the year, despite the resident repeatedly asking it to do something. This meant, by February 2026, the landlord had delayed for 24 months in attempting any repairs to the roof.
22. This delay was unacceptable, and there is no evidence within the records to justify its ongoing failure to at least consider temporary repairs throughout this 24-month period.

Damp and mould.

23. The landlord’s policy on damp and mould sets out that it will take the following actions following a report of either issue:
    1. Inspect the property according to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
    2. Share the results of the inspection with residents and outline an action plan to address any issues identified.
    3. Complete minor works such as mould washes within 30 days.
    4. Agree timescales for major works, such as damp proofing or installation of ventilation systems, within 5 working days of issuing the inspection report.
    5. Keep residents updated throughout this process.
24. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords “should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.”
25. The resident reported that there was damp and mould throughout the property via her stage 1 complaint on 2 January 2025. Despite this, the landlord failed to complete a damp and mould inspection with reference to the HHSRS at any stage from this point onwards. This was not in keeping with its policy.
26. From January 2025 onwards the only evidence of works completed to address damp and mould relates to the landlord replacing the kitchen waste pipe on 20 January 2025. Emails from the resident to the landlord indicate that it completed a mould wash at some point in March 2025. However, it failed to record this.
27. Therefore, the landlord failed to address the resident’s reports as per its policy from January 2025 onwards. It failed to inspect the property and raise a schedule of works to address any issues identified at any stage. This was despite the resident’s repeated reports of worsening damp and mould throughout 2025.
28. In its stage 2 response on 26 March 2025 the landlord advised that it intended to replace the roof, and that doing so should resolve the damp and mould. We recognise that the roof replacement was likely crucial to permanently addressing the damp and mould. However, the landlord failed to consider what other steps it could take to mitigate the issue once it had decided not to proceed with the roof replacement. This was not in line with its policy or the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report. Its failure to implement any kind of strategy to address damp and mould following its final response was unacceptable and likely caused the resident significant distress.

Compensation

29. We note the landlord has already apologised for delays in progressing the roof replacement and poor communication from January 2024 until March 2025.We also note that it acknowledged delays in addressing reports of damp and mould in its 10 March 2025 final response. To put both omissions right it paid the resident £1,125 to cumulatively address its delays in completing the roof repair and addressing a rat infestation. It also paid her an additional £500 for damp and mould delays.
30. However, we do not consider this to be sufficient because it does not recognise the adverse impact on the resident arising from the landlord’s failure to address the following issues:
    1. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to consider temporary repairs at any point from January 2024 until February 2026.
    2. The landlord also failed to address reports of damp and mould in the property in line with its policy from the date of its final response on 10 March 2025 until February 2026.
31. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £600 to £1000 are appropriate to put right failures which have significantly impacted residents. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation to address its handling of both issues we have considered how:
    1. The landlord failed to consider any strategies to manage the impact of damp and mould, roof leaks, or lack of insulation once it decided not to proceed with the roof replacement.
    2. The resident repeatedly reported that both issues were worsening following its 10 March 2025 final response.
    3. The situation remains unresolved.
    4. The landlord’s lack of action likely caused her significant distress, and;
    5. That this distress was likely more severe due to her circumstances as a mother of disabled children.
32. However, we have balanced this against the positive action the landlord took in offering to temporarily rehouse the resident on 17 March 2025. We have also considered how the sum offered at stage 2 for delays in addressing these issues was substantial and at the upper end of what we would typically award.
33. With all this in mind, we have ordered the landlord pays the resident a further sum of £600 at the low end of our scale. We have also ordered it to identify and complete temporary works to mitigate the impact of the roof issues and damp and mould until the resident moves into her new property.
34. We note that the resident asked the landlord for reimbursement for possessions she says were damaged by damp and mould in the property in her stage 2 escalation. The landlord has not addressed this. Therefore, we have ordered it to consider this request as per its compensation policy.

35. Our Scheme sets out that we may not consider complaints which have yet to exhaust a landlord’s internal process unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure. The landlord addressed its handling of the rat infestation in its final responses on 10 and 26 March 2025. The resident has complained about how the landlord handled her reports of the infestation from December 2024 until its final response. She has also complained about its handling of her requests post-final response for it to clear the property of rat droppings.
36. Typically, we would not consider matters which were raised after a final response. However, we can see the resident complained to the landlord on 20 November 2025 that it had failed to clear the property of droppings. The landlord then failed to address this via its formal process. Internal emails from 20 November 2025 also note the landlord considered these matters had exhausted its process and that it intended to refer the resident to us.
37. Therefore, we consider the landlord was given ample opportunity to address the more recent concerns about droppings but failed to. For this reason, as per our Scheme, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation and contamination from December 2024 to February 2026.
38. The landlord’s pest control policy explains it is responsible for resolving infestations caused by structural defects. It sets out that it will tackle infestations caused by environmental factors, such as poor waste management in communal spaces. In response to a report of pest infestation, it will take the following actions:
    1. Complete a risk assessment based on severity, type of pest, and impact on health and safety.
    2. Establish whether it is responsible for addressing the infestation.
    3. Prioritise vulnerable residents like those with disabilities and/or young children.
    4. Inspect emergency cases, like those which pose health hazards, within 2 working days.
    5. Inspect non-urgent cases, such as with minor infestations, within 7 working days.
    6. Outline a treatment plan based on the findings of the inspections with timescales.
    7. For rodents, this will involve poison bait, traps, and sealing points of entry.
    8. Schedule follow-up inspections to ensure the infestation has been eradicated.
39. The resident first reported a rat infestation on 20 December 2024. She advised that she was concerned about her son due to his hygiene related OCD and self-harming symptoms. She also advised she had paid for a private pest control company to attend and set traps. On 23 December 2024 she advised there was dead rat underneath the bath. In her complaint on 2 January 2025, she repeated her concerns and emphasized the serious risk of self-harm which she considered the infestation posed her son.
40. The resident’s daughter’s school also contacted the landlord to express serious concerns about the infestation and its impact on the resident’s children on 6 January 2025. The landlord took no action in response to any of these reports. This was not in line with its policy, and likely caused the resident significant distress.
41. In its stage 1 response on 14 January 2025 the landlord apologised for its lack of action and committed to “raise works as advised by the Pest Contractor to stop the rat issue”. On 20 January 2025 it completed works to seal gaps around waste pipes and an external airbrick. Internal emails note that it was due to attend the following day to seal another potential entry site underneath the bath. However, there is no record of this visit. The resident complained on 28 January 2025 that the landlord had attended as planned but failed to seal the hole under the bath. She also noted the infestation was getting worse and that she was unable to use her kitchen. In the absence of any records to contradict her view, we are not persuaded that the landlord sealed the entry point under the bath on 21 January 2025.
42. Following this the landlord took no further action and offered no updates until its stage 2 response on 10 March 2025. This lack of action was not in line with its policy. The resident reported that the infestation was getting worse on 28 January 2025. Therefore, as per its policy, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment, inspected the property, and raised a schedule of works with timescales to address it. It failed to do so, and we consider this likely compounded the resident’s distress.
43. On 14 March 2025 the landlord completed a CCTV survey of the drainage system. It acted positively by taking these steps to investigate the root cause of the issue. The survey recommended installing one-way valves to prevent rats accessing the property. It committed to complete this survey in its 10 March 2025 final response, and we consider it acted positively by following up on this promptly. The survey also noted that a privately rented neighbouring property was likely the breeding ground due to clutter and waste.
44. Internal emails from 26 March 2025 indicate the landlord had diagnosed that the infestation was impacting every property on the terraced row, and that the privately rented house was the root cause. We can see the landlord liaised with Adult Social Services at the local authority (LA) to provide support to the private tenant and organise the clearing of waste from the property. It acted positively by doing so.
45. We recognise that addressing the source of the infestation was complicated by its originating from a private property, and that addressing this was required for any permanent resolution. We also note that the LA assumed responsibility for this.
46. However, we do not consider the landlord took appropriate action to support the resident until a permanent solution could be implemented. We note it advised in its 26 March 2025 stage 2 response that it had installed rat flaps in the drains on the same day. However, the only related repair record was on 5 June 2025 when a contractor noted that “rat flaps [had been] fitted.” Therefore, we do not consider it completed these works within its 28-day routine repair timescales following the 14 March 2025 CCTV survey.
47. We can see the landlord’s contractor attended on 15 April 2025 and observed 2 rats had been caught in traps in the loft. They also noted that the loft required clearing. They attended again on 24 April 2025 and observed a rat had been caught in the bathroom, but no traps had been triggered in the loft. On each of these visits the contractor laid further traps and recommended follow up visits.
48. It was positive that the landlord started taking more robust steps to manage the infestation from this point. However, there is no evidence that it provided any updates to the resident during this time, or that it had established a clear action plan of works with timescales as per its policy. This was likely confusing and distressing for the resident. This likely impact is evidenced by the regular contact she made with the landlord throughout April and May 2025.
49. The contractor completed its “final visit” on 5 June 2025 and observed that no traps had been activated. They noted that the resident reported still hearing rats in the property. Despite the contractor advising the resident had reported concerns that the infestation was ongoing, there is no evidence the landlord returned to the property for the remainder of 2025. This was despite the resident also continuing to raise concerns about an ongoing infestation throughout this period. Its failure to act on these ongoing concerns was not in line with its policy.
50. The landlord also failed to keep a clear audit trail related to its working with Adult Social Services and contractors to clear the breeding ground of the rats. There are no records to indicate whether these efforts were successfully completed or remain ongoing. It would not be reasonable to take the view that the landlord had ultimate responsibility for these works. However, it should have kept clear audit trails of their progress, its involvement in these efforts, and meaningfully updated the resident as per its policy. It failed to do so, and this likely compounded her distress.
51. On 20 November 2025 the resident reported that the loft and bathroom were contaminated by rat droppings. Rat droppings could potentially pose an emergency hazard to the resident and her children under Awaab’s Law. This legislation came into effect on 27 October 2025. Therefore, the landlord should have considered her report under Awaab’s Law and inspected the property to determine whether the timescales under the law applied. However, it failed to take any action to inspect or clear the loft until early February 2026. Furthermore, as of 11 February 2026 it had yet to make any attempts to inspect the bathroom. Therefore, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s 20 November 2025 report.
52. In summary, the landlord failed to take any action to address the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in line with its policy until the CCTV survey in March 2025. While it completed works in April 2025 as per its policy, it then failed to return to the property to address the resident’s reports of an ongoing infestation in June 2025. It failed to keep her meaningfully informed about the progress of works or about its action plan to address the infestation following its final responses. It also failed to suitably address her reports of rat dropping contamination throughout the property in November 2025.
53. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it did not act proactively or communicate effectively with the resident about the infestation from December 2024 until 10 March 2025. It offered her £1,125 to cumulatively put right the impact of this and delays in addressing the faulty roof. However, we do not consider this is sufficient because its omissions continued after its final responses. Therefore, we will order it pays further compensation.
54. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, affected residents.
55. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation, we have considered the landlord’s failure to:
    1. Meaningfully update the resident following its final responses.
    2. Complete the drain works within its 28-day routine repair timescale.
    3. Suitably address the resident’s reports of infestation and contamination from June 2025.
56. We have also considered that:
    1. These omissions likely caused the resident distress; and
    2. This distress was likely more severe due to her circumstances as a mother of disabled children.
57. We have balanced these considerations against the positive actions the landlord took in completing the drain survey, liaising with the LA to address the root cause, and setting traps throughout April 2025. We have also considered that the £1,125 sum already paid in partial redress for its omissions until 10 March 2025 was substantial and at the higher end of what we would typically award.
58. With all this mind, we have ordered the landlord pays the resident a further sum of £300. We have ordered it to consider reimbursing the resident for costs she incurred in enlisting private contractors in 2024 as per its compensation guidance. We have also ordered it to inspect the property and set out a schedule of works to address any outstanding issues related to the infestation.

59. The resident complains that the landlord incorrectly reduced her priority banding for a management transfer in April 2025, which meant she missed out on an available property. This complaint relates to the actions of the LA in its assessment of the resident’s banding priority for housing transfer. Therefore, this complaint is most suitably assessed by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), who investigate complaints about LAs. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which are more appropriately handled by an alternative Ombudsman. For this reason, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

60. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will address stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. When it is unable to meet these timescales, it will explain the reasons for this and provide updated timescales. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
61. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 January 2025, and the landlord issued its response 8 working days later on 14 January 2025. This was within its timescales. She raised a stage 2 escalation on 28 January 2025, and the landlord was 9 working days late in issuing its response on 10 March 2025. However, we can see it advised the resident on 21 February 2025 that it needed until 11 March 2025 to issue a response due to staff absence. Therefore, it mitigated the impact of the delay and explained the reasons for it as per its policy.
62. Following this, however, it issued another stage 2 response on 26 March 2025. This letter differed in content to the previous response and set out a lower offer of £750 compensation. This was clearly unintentional, as it addressed the same issues set out in the previous response. We also note that the landlord went onto pay the £1,725 compensation offer set out in the 10 March 2025 response. In any case, this error likely caused the resident some frustration and confusion. The landlord has yet to address this, and so we will order it pays some compensation to put this right.
63. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have caused residents minor impacts. While we recognise this caused some impact, this was likely limited to short term frustration given the resident was still awarded the sum originally offered. However, there are no records to show when the landlord corrected this. Therefore, it is possible that the resident was waiting for a few weeks for the landlord to clarify its mistake. For this reason, we have ordered it to pay a further £100 in compensation.

Learning

64. The landlord’s general handling of the roof issues, damp and mould, and rat infestation, was poor. Internal emails throughout the entire period indicate a lack of clarity on its part as to the progress of outstanding works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

65. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. For instance, there are no records related to mould washes despite references to completing multiple washes in internal emails. There are also no records related to the scaffolding risk assessment, or to indicate the ultimate progress of the multi-agency approach to addressing the rat infestation. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how better record keeping might have produced a better outcome.

Communication

66. The landlord’s communication was poor. It failed to keep the resident consistently and meaningfully updated about outstanding works throughout the entire period. This meant the resident had to repeatedly chase it for updates. It also mistakenly issued 2 contradictory stage 2 responses. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how better communication might have mitigated the ongoing impact of delays on the resident.