Birmingham City Council (202526561)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a 3-storey block. The resident moved to the property in 2016 and said rats have been present since she moved in.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and related repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

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

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of a pest infestation and related repairs

6. The landlord was not proactive in trying to address the pest issue for the resident. It did not take any accountability to address the issue. And it failed to consider inspections or alternative pest contractors outside of its own environmental health team.

Complaint handling

7. The complaint responses did not make any attempt 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 consider

8. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about local authorities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing (acting in their role as ‘landlord’). All other complaints about local authorities fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO can consider complaints about actions and decisions made by environmental health services, such as pest control. The Housing Ombudsman can only investigate the local authority in so far as it was acting in its role as landlord. If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint about the actions of pest control, she may wish to contact the LGSCO.
9. We acknowledge the resident said the pest issue has been ongoing for around 10 years. The landlord’s repair records show rat activity mentioned in at least 2017, 2018 and 2019. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. While the history is noted for context, we will only consider events from 6 June 2024 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). The end of the scope will be 15 December 2025, when the landlord sent a further compensation offer.

10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep the structure of the property in repair. This includes the roof, gutters, external pipes, and facia boards.
11. The landlord’s pests and vermin policy (2017) says:
    1. There are a variety of ways it may deal with reports of infestations including:
       1. Providing advice and signposting.
       2. Visiting the property to diagnose the cause of the problem.
       3. Using specialist teams to treat the infestation.
       4. Dealing with disrepair issues causing the problem.
    2. A visit may need to be undertaken to determine the cause and extent of the infestation. Depending on the information received, it may undertake a joint visit with environment health if the case concerns a severe infestation, for example rats inside a property. After the visit, it will send a letter to the resident to advise on the action it will take.
12. When a resident reports a pest infestation, the landlord should investigate. If it is found that a pest issue is present, we will look to see that the landlord follows the advice of specialists and undertakes the recommended course of action to solve the issue.
13. The evidence showed the resident raised the pest issue with the local authority pest control team on 29 April 2025. However, there was no evidence the resident raised the issue directly with the landlord (for example her housing officer or the housing repairs team) in relation to rats, prior to the formal complaint. Once the complaint was raised the evidence showed the landlord emailed its pest control team chasing updates on 9 and 18 June 2025. It then used the stage 1 complaint response to manage the resident’s expectations and provide advice. While these were positive steps, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange a visit to the property, in line with policy. Particularly given the previous reports of rats.
14. The landlord’s contractor completed a full re-wire of the property of 8 July 2025. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day. She said the contractor had found evidence of rats in the loft and she wanted holes in the loft space filled. The landlord raised a work order to address rats inside the roof space the same day, which was positive. However, it cancelled the work order the same day. The notes said:
    1. The work order should be for its environmental health team.
    2. Work to fill the holes in the loft should be re-raised once the pests are removed.

This was a second missed opportunity for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property, in line with its pest policy, which was a failing.

15. The resident chased on 9 July 2025. In response, the landlord emailed its pest control and repairs teams for an update. Pest control replied the next day and said it “was not offering any pest control services at the moment.” However, the evidence showed that on 14 July 2025, the landlord raised a loft/roof repair. Its contractor visited 4 days later, in line with its policy. However, it:
    1. Did not complete any loft repairs.
    2. Noted “faeces and dead rats in the loft, not hygienic.”
    3. Cancelled the repair and referred back to the housing team to “address the pest issue in the loft.”

After no action, the resident contacted her MP who emailed the landlord the following day.

16. Following the MP contact, the landlord raised another work order to address the rats in the roof space on 21 July 2025. However, the landlord also cancelled this. The notes said the “job [was] for pest control, re-raise for repairs once environmental health have been out.” After this, the evidence showed:
    1. The landlord asked its repairs team if it could assist with the loft on 30 July 2025, despite 3 previous work orders being cancelled.
    2. The landlord contacted a housing officer for assistance on 5 August 2025, who said to speak to the area manager and another housing officer.
    3. On 12 August 2025 the other housing officer said:
       1. Pest issues are for its environmental health team.
       2. A work order can be raised with the repairs team for holes in the loft (despite 3 work orders for the repairs team previously being cancelled).

The landlord issued its stage 2 response the next day. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to arrange an inspection or consider using an alternative specialist team to address the pest infestation. The failure to consider either option was unreasonable and protracted the issue for the resident. 

17. Despite further MP contact on 26 August 2025 there was no evidence the landlord took any further action. The lack of action and poor complaint responses led the resident to contact us. It was only after receipt of a notice of a potential hazard under Awaab’s law sent by us on 20 November 2025, the landlord started to act. It visited the property on 25 November 2025 and recommended:
    1. A pest contractor provides 3-4 bait actions and checks to eradicate rats. It raised a work order for this the same day.
    2. Loft insulation be removed and replaced in its entirety.
    3. A CCTV drain inspection.

It was positive the landlord finally inspected the property and took steps to start to investigate and address the issue. However, this was 5.5 months after the resident raised her complaint.

18. The pest subcontractor attended on 28 November 2025 and 4 December 2025, which was positive. However, no one took further action until 15 December 2025 when the landlord visited again. It noted:
    1. The subcontractor had only baited twice.
    2. It inspected the loft and there was an “overpowering smell [it believed could be] a dead rat or at the very least urine/droppings.”
    3. The best plan of action was a CCTV survey to the 3 ground floor flats. It raised the work order the same day.

While it was positive the landlord was now taking action, it would have been reasonable for it to monitor the pest subcontractor and ensure further baiting was carried out. It should also have raised the CCTV drain survey after the first visit. These were further failings.

19. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation has been poor. There was:
    1. A lack of effective communication with other departments.
    2. No meaningful action between 29 April 2025 (when the resident reported the issue to pest control) and 25 November 2025, almost 7 months later. This was despite MP involvement. During this time, the landlord:
       1. Was not proactive in addressing the issue. The evidence showed it only acted after the resident chased the issue, or it was contactedby the resident’s MP or us.
       2. Missed opportunities to inspect the property in June and July 2025, in line with its pest policy.
       3. Wasted time raising repairs that were ultimately cancelled on 8, 14 and 21 July 2025 due to not taking any ownership or accountability for the issue.
       4. Took no action for 3 months between the stage 2 response and contact from us.
       5. Delayed in raising the CCTV survey by 3 weeks.
       6. Failed to consider an external pest contractor, once aware its own pest control team would not attend.
    3. Failed to monitor the work orders. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for work, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. The landlord’s lack of urgency or proactive involvement in the issue, coupled with contractor failings and poor communication, ultimately left the resident living with rats for an unreasonable length of time. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience and has affected her enjoyment of the property.
20. While there were significant failings here, we acknowledge the landlord has offered the resident compensation and has started to act. We welcome and encourage landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response. It was therefore positive the landlord offered the resident compensation. However, as the landlord offered it after the end of the complaint procedure, it was not reasonable redress. The failure to respond appropriately during the complaints process delayed in addressing the matter for the resident, which caused further distress and inconvenience. As a suitable compensation offer was not made until 4 months after the end of the complaints process, a finding of maladministration is made. An additional £150 is awarded to recognise this period of delay. And orders have been made for the landlord to address the rat issue at the property.

21. Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
22. It was unclear from the complaint responses whether the resident’s complaint was dealt with by a specific department, or by a generic complaints team. The complaint responses:
    1. Were both sent outside of the landlord’s policy timeframe, albeit only minor delays.
    2. Did not acknowledge any failings.
    3. Were a missed opportunity for the landlord to try and put things right at the earliest opportunity. The landlord could have used the complaints process to arrange to inspect the property. Failing to do meant it did not inspect until 25 November 2025, almost 5 months after the stage 1 response.
    4. Referred the resident solely to the LGSCO and not to us. A recommendation has made in light of this.

Overall, there was minor failure by the landlord which it did not appropriately

acknowledge or fully put right. There was therefore service failure. An order has been made for an additional £100 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping was of a reasonable standard overall.

Communication

24. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident, its contractors, and between departments was poor.