City of Westminster Council (202528849)

Decision
Case ID	202528849
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 May 2026

Background

The resident lived in supported housing. She reported cockroaches and mice in the property in June 2025. She complained as she said the landlord delayed in completing proofing works.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of mice and cockroaches in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice and cockroaches in the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of mice and cockroaches in the property

The landlord significantly delayed in completing proofing works. Its communication and oversight of contractor works was poor, which contributed to the delays.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed in putting right some of its complaint handling failures. It did not respond to all the complaint issues raised.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 08 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £995 made up as follows: £870 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of mice and cockroaches in the property £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any of the £995 it offered on 2 April 2026 if it can evidence that it has already paid this.	No later than 08 June 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must respond in writing to the resident’s: request for appointment details to be provided in writing concern that repairs in the property were contributing to pest infestations The landlord must provide us with a copy of the letter by the due date.
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the pests and any required proofing and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the pest infestation whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 08 June 2026
5	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the pest control/ proofing works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or the steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident	No later than 08 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 June 2025	The resident complained that the landlord had not completed proofing works. She said she had to buy traps and raised safety concerns. She said it impacted her sleep and caused embarrassment and isolation. She said the property’s condition may contribute to pest issues.
25 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised that it had not completed recommended proofing works. It said contractors would contact the resident by 28 July 2025 to arrange these works. It said it would continue the pest treatment. It offered £75 compensation. This included £50 for the inconvenience caused by delayed proofing works and £25 for its late stage 1 response.
29 July 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said the landlord had not contacted her to arrange the agreed proofing works, despite her chasing it. She asked about the nature and timescale of the works. She said contractors visited despite her telling the landlord she would not be at home. She asked it to confirm appointments in writing. She reported finding cockroaches daily, causing her anxiety. She reported concerns about associated health risks and said she had to buy traps. She said it had not fully acknowledged the impact and she felt its wording minimised her experience. She was also concerned that repairs at the property may contribute to the infestation.
1 October 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said contractors completed proofing works on 3 September 2025. It apologised for the delays and that the resident had to chase it. It explained its wording and advised her to raise the repairs separately. It offered £235 total compensation. This included: the £75 it offered at stage 1, £20 for the delayed proofing works, £20 for poor communication, £20 for stage 2 delays, and £100 for impact and inconvenience. It said the latter included the financial impact of her buying her own traps.
2 April 2026	The landlord wrote to the resident, apologising that the pest issues were ongoing and acknowledging that it had not completed the proofing works. It outlined learning relating to communication and complaint handling. It agreed to carry out an inspection on 10 April 2026 to arrange the required works. It offered £995 total compensation. This included: the £235 it offered at stage 2, £680 for the impact, poor communication, and failure to act on her vulnerabilities, and £80 for failing to address issues at stage 2 and not acting on her contact after stage 2.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not completed proofing works and the cockroach infestation was ongoing. She said she wanted the landlord to complete effective proofing works.

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.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s reports of mice and cockroaches in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported cockroaches appearing in the property after contractors investigated a heating issue in June 2025. The landlord responded in line with its pest control procedure’s timescale of 3 working days. On 5 June 2025, contractors confirmed a cockroach infestation in multiple rooms, laid bait, and made proofing recommendations.
When the resident reported a mouse on 6 June 2025, the landlord responded in line with its pest control procedure’s timescale of 3 working days again. Contractors laid mouse and cockroach bait and made proofing recommendations on 9 June 2025. We have not been provided with evidence of the recommended proofing works.
On 16 June 2025 contractors identified ongoing mice and cockroach infestations, with access holes linked to ducting. They recommended removing kitchen kickboards and sealing entry points. The resident chased the outstanding proofing works several times in June and July 2025 and reported the infestations worsening. The landlord internally acknowledged that the works were urgent, and it should have approved works sooner.
Contractors attended again on 3 July 2025. The resident said they removed kickboards and sealed some access holes. She said they advised her further extensive works were required over 2 days, involving kitchen unit removal to seal access points. The landlord confirmed that contractors recommended proofing works. Where proofing works are required, the landlord’s pest control procedure says a proofing advice sheet should be completed, detailing recommendations. It has not provided evidence outlining what proofing recommendations were made. This lack of clarity may have contributed to poor communication and delays.
The landlord said contractors were unable to access the property on several occasions between June and August 2025. The resident said contractors attended without prior notice. The landlord has provided limited evidence of the failed visits or that she was given advance notice. The landlord’s pest control procedure requires direct contact with residents to arrange access where major works are recommended. There is limited evidence of the communication to arrange access. The resident reported contractors attending when she had confirmed she would not be present. Poor communication when arranging appointments likely contributed to delays.
The resident said contractors attended without notice on 28 July 2025 to lay traps and bait. She was not contacted to arrange this or proofing works as agreed at stage 1. She requested updates from the landlord multiple times in July and August 2025. She sent it evidence of cockroaches which she said appeared daily. There was poor communication between the landlord and contractors in August and September 2025 about the recommended works and whether they had been completed. This likely caused further delays.
In September 2025 the resident told the landlord she continued to find cockroaches, was buying her own traps, and it impacted her wellbeing. Between 3 September 2025 and the landlord’s stage 2 response on 1 October 2025 she repeatedly confirmed that proofing works remained outstanding. It was unreasonable for the landlord to incorrectly say in its stage 2 response that contractors had completed proofing works on 3 September 2025.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The resident contacted the landlord several times. She repeated requests for it to confirm appointments in writing and raised concerns about the impact of repairs on any infestation. The landlord significantly delayed in responding to her reports that it had not completed proofing works and the infestation was ongoing.
The landlord’s total compensation offer of £870 on 2 April 2026 for its handling of the resident’s reports of mice and cockroaches was in line with our compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for failures with a significant impact requiring substantial redress. An inspection took place on 10 April 2026, and the landlord agreed contractors would complete proofing works, including removing kitchen units to inspect access points.
The resident said she had to buy traps and materials to cover holes in the property. She said the presence of cockroaches in the kitchen affected food preparation, leading her to buy ready meals instead. She also said this made her reluctant to have visitors. She told us she has not received any further contact about the proofing works.
Although the landlord took some steps to put things right in April 2026, these actions were significantly after its internal complaints procedure. We have therefore found maladministration. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right, in line with our compensation guidance. This includes orders to apologise, pay the total compensation offered, inspect and produce a written report, and start the required works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The 2024 Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how landlords should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales were in line with the Code. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 29 June 2025 stage 1 complaint in 2 working days on 2 July 2025 in line with the 5 working days in its complaints policy and said it would respond by 16 July 2025. It issued its stage 1 response 17 working days later than its acknowledgement on 25 July 2025. This was not in line with the 10 working days in its complaints policy or agreed timescale. It did not agree an extension and the resident had to chase a response, contrary to the Code.
On 6 August 2025 the resident asked the landlord to acknowledge her 29 July 2025 escalation. It acknowledged the complaint that day. This was 6 working days from her escalation, 1 working day outside its complaints policy’s timescale. It did not set out its understanding of the complaint or the 20-working-day response and extension timescales in line with the Code. The landlord extended its response deadline to 1 October 2025. As its complaints policy refers to 20 “days” rather than “working days,” this 20-working-day extension was not in line with its policy’s timescale. However, the extension and its 1 October 2025 stage 2 response complied with the Code’s and its agreed timescales.
The landlord offered £45 total compensation for complaint handling delays at both stages, which was in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for minor failures. It did not address all the issues the resident raised, which was not in line with the Code. Specifically, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns that repairs may contribute to pest infestations, or to her request for appointment times in writing.
The landlord’s stage 2 response contained inaccuracies, and it failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence about this within its complaint handling. The £80 compensation it offered on 2 April 2026 for these failures was in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of awards for minor failures causing distress and inconvenience. It also showed some learning. However, this was significantly after its internal complaints process. We have therefore found service failure.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our compensation guidance. This includes an order for it to apologise and pay the total compensation it offered. We have also ordered it to respond to the issues it did not address in its complaint responses.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not have complete records of the recommended proofing works which may have contributed to poor communication and delays in completing the works.

Communication

The landlord had limited oversight of its contractors. It failed to identify that works had not been completed, despite communication from the resident. Our spotlight report on repairs highlights that landlords should have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.