City of Westminster Council (202501439)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom third floor flat with her spouse and 4 young children. She was pregnant with her fourth child for most of the period of her complaint. The landlord told us it only recorded that the resident needed support at that time. However, she reports that she and her family have had mental and physical ill-health, including breathing issues, from her property’s pests, damp, and mould and from antisocial behaviour (ASB) in her block’s communal areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Multiple pest infestations at the resident’ property.
   2. Damp and mould at the resident’s property.
   3. ASB in resident’s block’s communal areas.
   4. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of multiple pest infestations.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
   4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, we found that:

Multiple pest infestations

5. The landlord delayed inspecting the source of flies and giving the resident its liability insurance details for her reported damages, did not record an inspection for the flies, reportedly left the resident to deal with this, did not address the mice and ants she reported at the time that it later acknowledged together with her family’s vulnerabilities, and did not offer her proportionate compensation.

Damp and mould

6. The landlord delayed dealing with the resident’s damp and mould case and tackling the window and ventilation issues helping to cause this, did not agree an action plan with her to resolve this, did not give us records or outcomes for all of its inspections and works, and did not act urgently about the ventilation for her family’s health concerns. It also did not acknowledge or put right its failings.

ASB

7. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s ASB reports and did not open new ASB cases for, investigate, follow up, agree or take action for, or give advice and information about other agencies where appropriate in response to all of her reports. It also did not acknowledge or put right its failings.

The resident’s complaint

8. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgements and responses were timely and addressed the resident’s complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure.

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 will not investigate

9. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident reported multiple pest infestations at her property to the landlord from 2019 to 2022, which she complained to it about in 2022 but did not exhaust its complaints procedure. She then raised multiple pest infestation reports and a second formal complaint to it again in 2024 that did exhaust the complaints procedure. However, there is no evidence the resident raised the second complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issues. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising the second complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the multiple pest infestations before 2024.
10. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s pest infestation reports after January 2025 are not investigated by this report because a complaint about its handling of them after that date has not exhausted its complaints procedure yet. It would also be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make damages claims for the injuries to health and lost belongings and costs she reported due to the pest infestations on its liability insurance and/or to the courts. The courts and/or insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical and legal advice to decide on the causes of any injury and costs and how long they last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we will investigate

11. After the resident repeatedly told the landlord from 2019 to 2022 that there were ants, mice, and flies infesting her property, she told it these were still there from August 2024. It agreed to survey the property again to look for the pest problems and she gave it photos, videos, and emails about ants in food and water, flies throughout the property, and mice leaving urine, droppings, and shredded furniture. The resident explained she had to pay for pest control, cleaning, and new furniture and belongings. She also said this had negatively affected her and her family’s health and wellbeing.
12. The landlord then agreed in August 2024 to offer the resident a joint housing and pest control visit to properly assess, log, track, and suggest pest infestation solutions. It also offered to consider funding another pest control service if she was unhappy with the outcome of this. This was in line with the landlord’s tenant handbook, which confirmed it could treat the resident’s property for pests including mice. It told us this was part of its free pest control service for tenants, which required it to inspect reports of pests, give residents a copy of its inspection report and any recommendations, and arrange for any recommendations to be carried out. The landlord also offered the resident £400 compensation, including because it was sorry she felt she had to pay for cleaning due to the pest infestations.
13. However, the resident then explained that the landlord only offered her a pest control visit on 12 December 2024 and did not bring this forward after it agreed to when she chased it about this in November 2024. The landlord did not give us a copy of a pest control policy or procedure after we asked it for this. However, it is reasonable to expect it to have responded to the resident’s 12 August 2024 pest infestations report within its tenant handbook’s 28-working-day routine repair timescale because this confirmed it would attend for the pests she reported. This meant it was a failing that the landlord only offered her a pest control visit for this 88 working days after her report in December 2024.
14. The resident also repeated to the landlord in December 2024 that it had cost her much more than its £400 compensation offer to cover her family’s mental and physical ill-health, damaged belongings, and cleaning costs from the pest infestations. She said this instead only covered a month’s worth of pest repairs and cleaning. This meant there was another failing by the landlord. This is because it did not give the resident its liability insurance details to make a claim for the pest infestation costs and damages she reported from 12 August 2024 until its stage 2 response gave these to her on 8 January 2025. This took an unreasonable 104 working days. The details needed to have been given sooner because the landlord’s tenant handbook said it had to have such insurance to cover if it caused loss, damage, or injury and its complaints and compensation policies said personal injury claims had to be made to its insurance team.
15. The landlord acknowledged its 12 December 2024 pest control inspection started late on the day and poorly communicated to the resident. Its stage 2 response increased its compensation offer to her by £35 to recognise this. This was below the £50 minimum recommended by our remedies guidance for such delays in getting matters resolved. However, the increase was above the £20 recommended by the landlord’s compensation policy for missed appointments, which was understandable as this was the most similar situation covered by the policy.
16. The landlord also acknowledged its above pest control inspection did not find the cause of all of the pest infestations. However, it agreed to investigate a tray behind the resident’s fridge on 9 January 2025 for the source of the flies. It was reasonable at first for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its pest control inspectors to agree to investigate the causes of the pests further. This is because of their expertise and the lack of expert or other evidence about the source of the pests. However, it is concerning this meant the resident had to wait another 17 working days for another inspection without a solution. We do not have a record of the outcome of the January 2025 pest inspection. The resident instead told us she had to get a private contractor to end the fly infestation by dealing with stagnant water. It is concerning that this was another pest infestation response she had to arrange herself.
17. The landlord then inspected the resident’s property for ants and mice again during 4 appointments from July to October 2025. It acknowledged there were vulnerable young children and a baby at the property and used pesticides, gel, and foam to fill gaps while advising the resident to follow hygiene recommendations to stop the pests. However, she told us she has to keep rebooking pest treatments because the mice infestation gets worse in winter and after dark and the landlord’s ant treatments are not working.
18. The landlord took at least 105 working days from August 2024 to January 2025 to inspect for the source of the flies, did not give us a record or the outcome of its January 2025 appointment, and reportedly left the resident to deal with this herself. It also took 104 working days to give her its liability insurance details, and it did not address the mice and ants she reported at the time, despite later acknowledging vulnerable young children and a baby were present and treatment and works were needed. This meant the landlord was responsible for failings amounting to maladministration in its handling of multiple pest infestations at the resident’s property. Its apology, compensation offer, insurance details, inspections, and treatments were not proportionate to put things right. Our remedies guidance instead recommends up to £600 compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident.
19. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £600 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the multiple pest infestation handling failings identified by this report. We have also recommended it contact the resident to arrange for it to fund another pest control service to find the cause of her continuing mice and ant infestations and solve these if she is still unhappy with its handling of these, as offered in its stage 1 response.

What we will not investigate

20. We will not investigate the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the resident’s property before 2024 or after January 2025, or any damages and costs from this to her and her family’s health and belongings, for the reasons given in the previous section.

What we will investigate

21. After the resident reported a lack of ventilation in her kitchen to the landlord in 2022, she told it in August 2024 that there was outstanding damp and mould in her property. It responded by explaining it had not seen specific reports about this from her before, but that its specialist team would contact her to make an appointment to investigate. However, the resident complained that the damp and mould would not go away after several private treatments due to the lack of ventilation in her bathroom and kitchen, which she had to keep cleaning. She was concerned that she and her children kept getting sick with breathing difficulties, and that there was a risk of fainting from overheating in the kitchen despite the windows being fully open.
22. The landlord then completed a damp and mould survey on 16 August 2024, which was 4 working days after the resident’s 12 August 2024 damp and mould report. This was only just outside its damp and mould policy’s 3-working-day timescale to arrange a damp and mould visit. The landlord found mould in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen ceilings and around both of her bedrooms’ windows. It then completed a mould wash for this 2 working days after its inspection on 20 August 2024. This was within the policy’s 10-working-day timescale to do so. However, the landlord then took until 16 October 2024 to redecorate. This was 41 working days after the mould wash, which was an unreasonable length of time after its repairs policy’s 28-working-day routine works timescale.
23. The landlord also unreasonably delayed addressing the resident’s reports about a lack of ventilation at her property. This is because it only booked a ventilation survey for 30 September 2024, which was 35 working days after her 12 August 2024 ventilation report. The landlord also did not give us a record or the outcome of that survey or of any actions that were recommended by it, which was inappropriate. Its damp and mould policy said it instead had to deal with cases within at least 20 working days, identify and tackle the underlying causes including inadequate ventilation, agree an action plan with the resident to resolve this, and act urgently for health concerns. It was therefore a failing by the landlord that there is no evidence that it followed any of these requirements from the policy in response to the resident’s ventilation and health concerns.
24. The resident also told the landlord on 16 October 2024 that its mould wash in her bathroom had not been done properly and part of the redecorating had been missed. She then complained again on 4 December 2024 that mould continued to return and damage her family’s health and belongings. The resident described this as being found to be from condensation due to overcrowding and 5 people sharing a bathroom, which needed repeated mould washes. However, she explained it was found that ventilation to address this was difficult to fit and that new bathroom windows were also needed to do so.
25. The landlord then arranged further mould and ventilation surveys on 18 and 31 December 2024. It was appropriate these were arranged but the surveys were outside of its damp and mould policy’s above timescales. The mould survey was 45 and 10 working days after the resident’s October and December 2024 reports. The ventilation survey was also 99 working days after the resident’s August 2024 ventilation report.
26. The above surveys confirmed further bathroom, kitchen, and bedroom mould wash, redecorating, window, and ventilation works were needed. The landlord then booked a mould wash, repairs, and redecorating for 9 January 2025. This was 13 working days after its December 2024 mould survey and slightly outside its damp and mould policy’s 10-working-day mould wash timescale.
27. The landlord was quoted for ventilation and window works on 13 January 2025 but did not give us a record or the outcome of such works. It instead next recorded its 22 July 2025 damp and mould inspection found mould wash, repair, and ventilation works were needed, completing the wash and repair on 24 July 2025. The mould wash was within the policy’s above timescale but it is very concerning no ventilation works were recorded by it over 11 months after the resident’s August 2024 report, especially given the resident’s family’s reported health issues.
28. The resident told us that the landlord’s mould washes, repairs, and redecorating kept having to be repeated because mould kept returning after them. She repeated that this was because of her property’s overcrowding and lack of ventilation, with the property’s age making fitting ventilation difficult and window and ventilation works being delayed. The resident said the landlord’s latest appointment for this was due to have taken place on 24 October 2025, over 14 months after her August 2024 ventilation report.
29. The landlord was responsible for failings in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports. It delayed dealing with her case and tackling the ventilation and window issues helping to cause this, did not agree an action plan with her to resolve this, did not give us records or outcomes for all of its inspections and works, and did not act urgently about the ventilation and windows for her family’s health concerns. This amounted to maladministration.
30. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £1,000 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the damp and mould handling failings identified by this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for serious failures over a significant period of time. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to agree an action plan with her and start works to resolve the damp, mould, ventilation, and window issues at her property and her family’s health concerns. This includes confirming whether suitable alternative accommodation is needed and will be made available to her.

What we will not investigate

31. We will not investigate the landlord’s handling ASB in the resident’s block’s communal areas before 2024 or after January 2025, or any damages from this to her and her family’s health, for the reasons given earlier in this report.

What we will investigate

32. After the resident told the landlord in 2022 that there was ASB from violence and drug and alcohol use in her block’s communal areas, she contacted it again in August 2024 to say this was still happening. It responded to her by explaining it had discussed and was committed to addressing this, so its ASB team would contact her to talk about her reports, which she then sent it more information for. However, the resident then complained to the landlord about neighbours on the first floor of her block urinating near the lifts, dealing drugs and being intoxicated on the communal walkways, and being caught doing this on CCTV. It therefore agreed to open a new ASB case for her.
33. The landlord’s ASB team contacted the resident, who confirmed she had not previously reported the ASB to the police, but that she wanted CCTV in the lifts and communal areas. It explained it already had CCTV in lifts and asked her to report further incidents to it with a 2-hour window so it could investigate these. The landlord also gave the resident details so she could raise future ASB cases with it, advised her to report this to the police if she felt unsafe, and arranged for ASB hotspot signs to be displayed in her block’s entrance. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure, which define this as including violence, drug and alcohol abuse and dealing, and the misuse of communal areas.
34. The policy and procedure also says the landlord will respond to ASB reports within at least 24 hours, investigate these, give advice on options, agree a course of action to tackle the problem, and give information about other agencies where appropriate. This meant it was reasonable that it discussed the resident’s reports with her to investigate them, gave details as to how to make further reports, advised her about contacting the police, and put up signs. After her ASB report on 12 August 2024, the landlord contacted her on 14 August 2024, which was a short delay just outside its policy and procedure’s 24-hour timescale.
35. However, the resident then complained to the landlord in December 2024 that there was drug use near her floor’s lift and the misuse of communal walkways in October 2024 and an attempted robbery and an intoxicated person found at her block in November 2024. She explained this was part of a large rise in incidents from visitors on the first and top floors of the block and in the car park, including drug dealing, shouting, and fighting. The resident had been scared to report most of the incidents to the police but gave the landlord a video, photo, and police reference number for the above incidents and asked for more CCTV in her block’s stairs and lifts.
36. The landlord only responded to the resident’s latest ASB report of 4 December 2024 after 18 working days on 2 January 2025, however, and did not open a new ASB case or investigate this. This was contrary to its policy and procedure’s 24-hour response timescale and requirements to investigate, give advice on, and give information about other appropriate agencies for her report. The landlord recorded that this was because the resident was having her fourth child when it contacted her and that she did not contact it about her previous ASB report again. However, it wrongly delayed responding to the report and then did not follow this up with her after a week, as it had agreed to, when she was understandably unable to discuss this or follow it up herself after giving birth. This was therefore a failing by the landlord.
37. The landlord did tell the resident on 2 January 2025 that it had asked the local police to patrol her area in response to her latest report of ASB in her block, so they could include this in their estate patrol to try and reduce the ASB there. This was appropriate and in line with the policy and procedure’s requirement for it to take a course of action to tackle the problem. However, it would have been better if the landlord had agreed the action with the resident, as also required by its policy and procedure, and if it had acknowledged and put right its delay in contacting her, followed up to investigate, and given her advice and information.
38. The resident then complained to us that ASB kept happening at her block but the landlord only referred her to the police instead of dealing with the vulnerable neighbours and lack of CCTV and working balcony lights that she said caused this. However, it only recorded writing to ask if she had any ASB issues to discuss and for it to investigate on 30 July 2025 and not opening an ASB case or investigating after she did not respond. This was 146 working days after the landlord last spoke to the resident about this in January 2025, which was an unreasonably long delay. It was also inappropriate that it did not follow this up itself or call her as well as writing to her, and that it expected her to do so instead. This was therefore another failing by the landlord in handling the resident’s ASB reports that, together with its other failings in doing so, amounted to maladministration.
39. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £300 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience she experienced from the ASB handling failings identified by this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failings that adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to call, write to, and follow up with the resident about her outstanding ASB concerns to discuss it opening and investigating a new ASB case. The landlord should respond to the resident’s concerns about vulnerable neighbours and a lack of CCTV and working balcony lights. It should also give her advice on options, agree a course of action to tackle the problem, and give her information about other agencies where appropriate, in line with the policy and procedure.

40. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days of this. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
41. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 14 August 2024 stage 1 complaint on 19 August 2024 and responded to this on 29 August 2024. This was in line with its policy and procedure’s and the Code’s above acknowledgement and response timescales at stage 1.
42. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 4 December 2024 stage 2 complaint on 10 December 2024 and responded to this on 8 January 2025. This was in line with its policy’s and procedure’s and the Code’s above acknowledgement and response timescales at stage 2.
43. The landlord’s complaint responses also addressed the issues raised in the resident’s complaints to it at both stage 1 and 2, as required by the Code. Therefore, as its acknowledgements and responses were timely and addressed her complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure, there was no maladministration by it in its handling of her complaint.

Learning

44. The landlord delayed responding to some of the resident’s reports of pests, damp and mould, and ASB and in giving her its liability insurance details for her reported damages. It also did not take action for all of her reports in line with its policies and procedures, and it did not acknowledge or put right all of its failings or show it had learnt from the outcome of her complaints. We have therefore recommended the landlord review its staff’s training needs in applying its tenant handbook and repairs, damp and mould, and ASB policies and procedures to make sure the failings identified by this investigation do not happen again.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

45. The landlord told us it only recorded that the resident needed support at that time and not that she reported her and her family’s mental and physical ill-health, including breathing issues, from conditions at her property. It also did not record or give us the outcome of all of its pest and damp and mould inspections and works or acknowledge or put right its record keeping failings. We have therefore recommended the landlord review its record keeping processes for pests, damp and mould, and repairs to make sure it has full, accurate, and accessible records of all of its actions for these and their outcomes.

Communication

46. The landlord did not communicate with the resident in a timely manner or fully in response to all of her reports of pests, damp and mould, and ASB. We have therefore also made the above staff training recommendation to make sure that its communication failings do not happen again.