Babergh District Council (202345261)

Background

1. The resident had a long-standing issue with infestations of rats in the property that had been ongoing for over 4 years.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not act promptly in its handling of the pest infestation. It did not keep the resident informed, delayed the inspections and took over a year to complete the repairs.
7. The landlord did not escalate the complaint promptly when the resident requested and it took 5 months for it to issue its stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge this delay or offer any redress.

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.

8. The resident has reported rat issues for the past 4 years. We investigated the landlord’s handling of earlier reports under case reference 202207448 which we determined in July 2023. This report will consider how the landlord handled the resident’s more recent reports of a rat infestation since November 2023. This is based on the evidence we have obtained and to ensure the landlord had a fair chance to address the concerns the resident raised through the complaints process.
9. The landlord does not have a specific pest policy. Its website states that residents are normally responsible for pests. However, in 2021 it accepted responsibility because it believed the rats were coming from a neighbour’s garden.
10. In addition, landlords are obliged to make sure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which includes eliminating household pests. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 puts a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair. Legislation requires landlords to take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. The resident reported rats in her home. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow rats to enter the property. 
11. On 28 November 2023, the resident told the landlord she still had rats entering her home and she believed this was through the loft. The landlord had previously installed a new roof, but the issue continued. She said she was using baiting traps, but the rats remained a problem.
12. In its stage 1 response on 1 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s ongoing problems with rats and said it would arrange for a contractor to inspect the property and, if needed, carry out pest treatments. This was an appropriate response. It showed the landlord was taking the issue seriously and working to find a resolution.
13. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to confirm when it arranged a contractor to inspect the property, as stated in its stage 1 response, and to provide details of any pest treatments or repairs. It could not provide full details of the actions it took after the stage 1 response. Landlords must keep adequate records that show an audit trail of their actions and decisions. These records enable them to respond accurately to later queries or complaints and to inform future decisions. If it had maintained proper repair records, the landlord could have clearly identified what work it completed and when.
14. While the landlord has not provided us evidence, the resident has informed us that it replaced fencing around the property in early 2024 but, by March, the issue persisted. On 8 March 2024, the resident informed it that rats were still entering her home, despite its contractors using baiting traps. The landlord visited on 14 March 2024 and said it would refer the matter to environmental health. However, there is no evidence that it made this referral or inspected the property to identify entry points at that time. Given the resident reported rats inside her home, it had a duty to inspect and identify possible entry points.
15. By 8 July 2024, the issue was still unresolved, and the resident reported that the infestation had worsened. In its August 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord apologised and explained that finding the source of an infestation can be challenging. It committed to inspecting the property, identifying repairs to stop rats entering, and creating an action plan with the resident. It also confirmed it would contact her by 9 August 2024 and committed to resolving the problem. This was a reasonable response that acknowledged her reports and showed it intended to investigate.
16. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident by 9 August 2024 as agreed, and the inspection did not take place until 8 October 2024. It later told this Service the delay was due to a staff member being off sick. The landlord apparently failed to reallocate the task, put alternative arrangements in place, or keep the resident updated during this period. This was unreasonable, especially given the potential health and safety risks of a rat infestation. The lack of communication also likely caused uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident, particularly as she was waiting for the inspection to address ongoing concerns.
17. At the October 2024 visit, the landlord found the loft too full to inspect and told the resident to clear it before an inspection could take place. While this was a reasonable instruction, the 2-month delay before this visit meant the infestation continued. There is also no evidence it told the resident in advance that the loft needed to be clear. This likely caused further delays, distress and inconvenience for the resident.
18. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide details of any repair works it completed after the stage 2 response. The landlord said its records showed no further actions and it could not provide any additional information. However, the resident told this Service that the landlord blocked the entry points in the loft about 6 months ago. She said that this temporarily resolved the internal infestation, but she has recently found a rat inside her property.
19. While it was positive that the landlord completed repairs to the loft, this took more than a year to complete after the resident raised the roof as a potential entry point. This delay was unreasonable given that the infestation posed a potential health risk. During this time, the resident continued to experience rats in the property, which likely affected her enjoyment of the home. For instance, she had referred to a strong smell of rat urine through the property.
20. Overall, the landlord failed to act promptly or keep the resident informed. It did not maintain adequate repair records, delayed an inspection for 2 months without making alternative arrangements or providing updates, and took more than a year to complete related proofing works. These failures likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. For these reasons, we have found maladministration.
21. In light of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident during 2024, we award £300 compensation for the failures noted in this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance when the landlord has not acknowledged its failings and there was an adverse impact on the resident.

22. The landlord uses a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states the landlord must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 3 working days of the complaint, which was within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy.
24. On 8 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord for a copy of the stage 1 response and said the issue was ongoing and she wanted to complain again. The landlord should have treated this as a request to escalate the complaint. However, the resident had to contact it again on 8 July 2024 to request escalation. It issued its stage 2 response on 5 August 2024, almost 5 months after the resident first asked to escalate.
25. In summary, the landlord did not escalate the complaint promptly when the resident requested and it took 5 months for it to issue its stage 2 response. This was significantly outside the 20-working day timeframe set out in the Code. The delay prolonged the complaints process and prevented the resident from referring the matter to this Service sooner. It did not acknowledge this delay or offer any redress. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
26. We order that the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where service failure by a landlord had an adverse impact on the resident, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right.

Learning

Reports of a pest infestation

27. The landlord took more than a year to complete repairs to the loft to resolve a rat infestation, despite the health risks. It should consider staff training on identifying and prioritising inspections and pest-related risks to ensure timely action in future cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s lack of records meant it could not fully demonstrate what actions it had taken or when. Although we were able to determine the case using the resident’s account, landlords are expected to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Good record-keeping enables landlords to respond accurately to complaints and show that they have followed their policies and procedures. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that it acted appropriately. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate records and has a robust record-keeping system in place.

Communication

29. In this case, the landlord delayed an inspection for 2 months because a staff member was off sick and it did not update the resident. It could consider staff training on contingency planning and effective communication during service delays to prevent similar issues.