From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

City of Westminster Council (202442543)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442543

City of Westminster Council

28 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 4-bedroom lower ground floor flat and she lives there with her children. The complaint has been brought to this Service by one of her children as her representative, however for clarity this report will refer to their actions as those of the resident throughout.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 1 August 2024. She said she had reported a pest issue on 30 July 2024 and was unhappy the landlord could not offer an appointment sooner than 30 August 2024.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 October 2024, in which it said:
    1. it was able to offer an earlier appointment and attended on 16 August 2024 – on this visit baits were placed around the property and proofing works were recommended
    2. a further visit was carried out on 29 August 2024 and another was arranged for 24 October 2024 after a no access visit on 16 September 2024
    3. it apologised for the delay in providing an earlier appointment, and for its delayed complaint response and offered £25 compensation for each, totalling £50
  4. On 5 November 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025, in which it said:
    1. a pest control visit was carried out on 7 January 2025 and further mouse activity was noted, with a further visit booked for 13 January 2025
    2. after this visit proofing works would be raised – this work would normally be routine, with a 28 day target, but would be expedited
    3. the resident should claim on her contents insurance for damaged items
    4. it increased its compensation offer to £200, broken down as follows:
      1. £25 for the delay in arranging the initial appointment
      2. £100 for the delay in completing proofing works
      3. £30 for time and trouble in having to chase a resolution
      4. £45 for its delayed complaint responses
  5. On 16 April 2025 the resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said that proofing work had not been completed and mice were still getting into the property. She told us this had led to significant damage to internal doors and the family’s belongings.

Assessment and findings

Pest infestation

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for dealing with pest infestations, including those involving rats and mice. The landlord’s Pest Control policy says it will respond the same day to reports of rats inside a property and within 3 working days to reports of mice.
  2. The Pest Control policy says proofing work which can be easily carried out at the time of a treatment visit should be done to enable the carrying out of effective treatment and minimise disruption to residents. The policy does not give a timescale for proofing work which cannot be carried out at the time of a treatment. We have therefore considered the timescale set out in its repairs policy for routine repairs of 28 days.
  3. The resident reported a pest infestation on 30 July 2024. We have not seen a copy of this report, however in her complaint of 1 August 2024 she referred to rats. However, she later refers to mice, and the pest control records indicate both rat and mice infestations. In her complaint she asked if the landlord would repair her internal doors if the damage got worse due to its delay. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 August and said internal door repairs were the resident’s responsibility.
  4. The landlord initially offered the resident an appointment for 30 August 2024, which was not in line with its policy timescale of a same day response for rats or 3 working days for mice. After the resident raised her complaint on 1 August 2024, the landlord brought the appointment forward to 16 August 2024. However, this was still not in line with its policy and therefore was not a reasonable response.
  5. The landlord’s repairs records show a job for mouse-proofing was raised on 27 August 2024. It is not clear why this was not raised the same day as the initial pest control visit, and this represented an unreasonable delay.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 October 2024. It said an appointment had been booked for 24 October 2024. It offered £25 compensation for the delay in providing an initial appointment and apologised for this, which was a reasonable response at this time.
  7. The landlord’s repair records show the appointment on 24 October 2024 went ahead. The notes state that the entry point appeared to be vent bricks, which were sealed with cement and covers. It said the kitchen entry points under units had also been sealed with cement. These actions were appropriate by the landlord, however they were not carried out within the 28 timescale set out in its repairs policy.
  8. When the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 5 November 2024, she said that there was still proofing work outstanding and the pest issue had not been resolved. During a pest inspection on 28 November 2024 a rat infestation was present. It was also noted that there was food debris present.
  9. A further pest inspection took place on 7 January 2025 which noted that the property was clean and tidy, however a mouse infestation was present. On 8 January 2025 the landlord asked the resident what proofing work was outstanding. She said a contractor that had visited did not have the correct tools to fit a back plate and was supposed to return, but did not. Its internal records note that it felt that the ongoing mouse activity demonstrated that proofing had not been fully completed.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025, in which it said that a pest inspection was booked for 13 January 2025. It said that after this further proofing works would be completed. The landlord explained that its usual timescale was 28 days but it would expedite the work.
  11. The landlord increased its offer of compensation for this issue to £155, which was appropriate at this time. However, it told the resident she should claim on her contents insurance for damaged items. Given the landlord’s delayed response to the reports of pests, it would have been appropriate for it to provide details of its liability insurer for the resident to make a claim, should she wish to.
  12. The pest inspection visit went ahead as agreed on 13 January 2025 and mice infestation was noted. A further visit on 6 February 2025 also found mouse activity. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that an appointment was offered to the resident for further mouse-proofing, or that this work has since been carried out.
  13. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. The landlord repeatedly failed to take action in line with its pest control and repairs policies.
  14. While the landlord did acknowledge failings in its stage 1 and 2 responses, it made a commitment to carry out further work, which it has failed to follow through with. Also, while the tenancy handbook states that internal door repairs are the responsibility of the resident, the landlord has not considered that damage was likely worsened by its delayed actions. The landlord should have put right any damage caused by its delays. The pest issue remains outstanding, causing further damage to the property, and the resident’s belongings. This has caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  15. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its continued failure to resolve the pest issue. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind and brings the total compensation for this issue to £405.
  16. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out an inspection to identify required proofing work and internal repairs required due to pest damage. The landlord is to provide a schedule of works, as well as a schedule of post-work monitoring for pest activity.
  17. Finally, an order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer in order for the resident to make a claim for her damaged belongings, should she wish to.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment. At stage 2, it says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and send its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It says that if it needs more time, it will write to the resident to explain the reason for the delay.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 1 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 August 2024. It did not actually log a complaint at that time, which was not appropriate. It send a further email on 9 August 2024, confirming it had logged a complaint and would respond by 23 August 2024.
  4. We have seen no evidence the landlord provided any further update to the resident. Its internal records of 16 September 2024 show that it realised the case had been triaged incorrectly and had not been responded to. It should have updated the resident at this point, but we have seen no evidence that it did.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2024 to ask when it would be responding. It responded on 30 September 2024 and apologised for not responding in line with its policy, and said it would respond by 4 October 2024. It was not appropriate that the resident had to chase for a response, after the landlord failed to update the resident in line with its policy.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 October 2024, in which it apologise for the length of time it had taken to respond. It offered compensation of £25 to recognise this delay. Given its lack of updates to the resident during that time, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to its failings.
  7. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 5 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 12 November 2024, in line with its complaints policy, and said it would respond by 10 December 2024.
  8. On 3 January 2025 the landlord’s internal records show it had found that the case had not been allocated due to an error with its complaint system. Given it had lost track of the complaint at stage 1, it was not appropriate that it allowed this to happen again at stage 2. However, it did contact the resident the same day to apologise and explain, which was a positive step.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025, in which it offered further compensation for its delayed complaint response to £20. This brought the total compensation for its complaint handling to £45. It did not set out any actions it would be taking to improve its complaint case tracking and its redress was again not proportionate to its failings.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did recognise its failings and apologised for these. However, its redress was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, given the pest problem remained unresolved. The landlord also failed to identify any action needed to ensure future complaints did not get overlooked in the same way.
  11. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind and brings the total compensation for this issue to £145.
  12. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint logging processes to identify the issues that led to this complaint being unallocated for a prolonged period at both stages.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation
    2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident total compensation of £550, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
      1. £405 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pest issue
      2. £145 in relation to its complaint handling
    2. a senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report
    3. provide the resident with details of its liability insurer, and information on how she can make a claim
    4. carry out an inspection to identify any outstanding proofing work, and identify any internal repairs required due to damage caused by pests
    5. provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of required works, including a proposed timescale for completion
    6. provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of post work pest control visits to ensure the proofing work has been successful
    7. provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders
  2. Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint logging processes to identify the issues that led to this complaint being unallocated for a prolonged period at both stages. A copy of its report, including any changes to its policy and processes should be provided to this Service.