ForHousing Limited (202445239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445239

ForHousing Limited

29 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rats at her property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed house.
The resident reported pest issues on 20 January 2023. She made a complaint about the landlord’s response on 29 February 2024. She said the pest issues were ongoing, and stopped her sleeping.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 March 2024. It said there was no evidence of any repair issues causing an infestation, and that tenants are responsible for resolving pest issues in the absence of any building defects. It said it felt it had offered sufficient support in funding 2 rounds of pest control for her and liaising with the local authority’s pest control team.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 November 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 January 2025. It set out the actions it had taken since December 2024, and said it would contact her with next steps once pest control had completed their final visit.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When contacting us about her complaint, the resident said her complaint is about both a rat infestation and pigeons. However, the complaint she made to the landlord was purely about rats. The rules which govern our Service say we may only consider complaints which have gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, we will only be assessing how the landlord handled her reports about rats.

Assessment – pest control

The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy are silent on responsibility for pests. The landlord also does not have a specific pest control policy. In the absence of such a provision or policy, the landlord would only be required to take action related to pests if there was evidence they gained access as a result of a repair issue. Outside of those circumstances, the resident would be responsible for dealing with pest infestations in the property.
The resident reported a rat infestation on 20 January 2023. She said she had not previously known what the pests were, but that she had recently seen rat droppings behind a kickboard in her kitchen. We have seen no evidence that the resident reported any repair issues or holes which could be allowing access for pests.
The landlord signposted the resident to the local authority, who carry out pest control in private homes for a fee. It said pest control would let it know if there were any repair issues allowing the rats in, and if so it would complete those repairs.
We would usually expect a landlord to complete its own inspection to identify any access points before concluding that pest control was a resident responsibility. In this case, however, it is apparent that the landlord has a working relationship with the local authority’s pest control team, and that pest control will report any ingress points to the landlord for repair. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to the local authority in the first instance, given the lack of any reports of access points or holes at that point.
The resident continued to report ongoing pest issues. The landlord’s records show the following actions in response:
1. It carried out a joint visit with the local authority’s pest control team on 21 February 2023. The pest control team confirmed they had already visited twice, and there was no evidence of any pest activity. When the resident said she thought rats were coming from next door, the landlord and pest control inspected the property next door. They said they saw no evidence of pest activity or repair issues next door.
2. The resident confirmed on 23 February 2023 that a bricklayer had found no holes in the brickwork. She said she believed the property next door was infested with rats, and the rats were in the walls.
3. The landlord arranged a home visit on 4 April 2023. It explained that the professionals had confirmed there were no pest issues, and it could only rely on expert opinion.
4. When the resident contacted the landlord again about pest activity on 11 May 2023, the landlord spoke to the local authority the next day. The local authority agreed to attend and put tracking powder down. The landlord also offered to look into alternative accommodation for the resident, which she declined as it was a 1-bed property rather than a 2-bed.
5. The resident asked the landlord to pull up floorboards and open walls to look for rats. It explained it would not do so when there was no evidence of pest activity.
6. The landlord arranged another home visit on 22 June 2023. The resident said a neighbour had a recording of the rats. The landlord visited the neighbour and asked to listen to the recording. Its notes say it was unable to determine what the noises were, and explained this to the resident. It explained that it was difficult for it to take any action when pest control said there were no rats.
7. On 28 June 2023 the local authority told the landlord they had visited ‘many times’ and there was no evidence of any infestation. They said they had used poison, tracking dust, and traps, with no pest activity shown on any of them. They said they were ‘sure’ there were no pest issues in the property.
8. The landlord told the resident on 5 and 12 July 2023 that everything that could be done had been done.
The landlord’s records show it responded reasonably and appropriately up to this point. It would only be responsible for dealing with pests when there was evidence of any repair issues allowing access, and there was no evidence of any such issues at that time. It appropriately liaised with the local authority, who advised there was no evidence of any pest issues, arranged home visits to the resident, and correctly explained that there were limited steps it could take in the absence of any evidence of pest issues. As such, there were no failings at this point.
On 31 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that rats were coming from her neighbour’s property, and there was a gap between the properties under the bath. The landlord paid for a round of pest control from the local authority.
The local authority’s pest control team attended on 14 November 2023. They reported that there was a hole under the bath where the waste pipe went, but no evidence of pest issues. The landlord attended to block the hole under the bath on 23 November 2023, but was unable to do so because it needed to remove the bath entirely for access.
The local authority told the landlord on 28 November 2023 that there had been no pest activity on any of the traps or poison since the previous visit, so it was closing the pest control job.
The landlord arranged for its plumber to attend on 18 December 2023 and remove the bath. The plumber called the landlord and advised the resident would not let them proceed with the works as she was expecting pest control that week. The landlord contacted pest control, who agreed to see if someone could visit that day. This was reasonable and resolution-focused. It then completed the works to block the hole and reinstall the bath on 10 January 2024.
We understand that the resident said the plumber told her he could hear rats in the bathroom. The landlord spoke to the plumber while he was in the property, and he disputed the resident’s account. It is not for us to determine either way whether or not the plumber told the resident he could hear rats. But given that he told the landlord he did not say so, there was nothing to prompt further action from the landlord beyond the actions it was already taking in blocking the hole.
The resident reported pest issues again on 30 January 2024. The landlord agreed to pay for a second pest control contractor to attend and provide a second opinion given the ongoing issues. This was reasonable and resolution-focused.
The pest control operative attended on a number of occasions between May and July 2024. Their reports show the following:
1. In the first 3 appointments they said there was evidence of rodent activity in the loft, but nowhere else in the property. They confirmed there were no external access points.
2. On 19 March 2024 they found bait taken, and 1 rodent on a glue board. On 26 March 2024 they found further evidence of rodents in the loft, but nowhere else. On 2 April 2024 they said there was no sign of pest activity with the bait trays, but there was evidence of activity in loft space and walls.
3. On 17 April 2024 pest control found no evidence of any rodent activity.
4. Between 28 May and 27 July 2024 there were 4 pest control visits. Pest control found 1 rat in the loft on 28 May 2024, and no evidence of any further pest activity on 4 June 2024, 10 July 2024 or 18 July 2024. They also inspected and left traps in neighbouring properties. They found no evidence of any pest activity in the other properties. They recommended the following works:
  1. Proofing in the eaves (the landlord completed this on 10 July 2024).
  2. Filling any holes in the gulley (the landlord completed this on 9 August 2024).
  3. Check the drain for any faults (completed on 23 August 2024, with no faults found).
  4. Lifting floorboards and opening walls (the landlord did not follow this recommendation).
The records show the landlord arranged multiple pest control visits. It also carried out multiple recommended proofing works to try to resolve this issue. This was reasonable, and shows it took the reports seriously. It also appropriately explained when there were potential causes it had no responsibility for (such as overflowing bins in neighbouring properties it did not manage), and reported those concerns to the local authority. As the local authority has powers to take enforcement action related to refuse and pests (which the landlord does not), this was reasonable and appropriate.
The only recommendation it did not follow was to lift the floorboards for an inspection of possible access points. It previously told the resident it would not do so when there was no evidence of any pests. That was reasonable, and we would not expect a landlord to take such action in the absence of any evidence of pests. However, from 4 June 2024 it was a pest control recommendation to do so. They said this was to identify any holes allowing access above the living room ceiling. The operative on 25 July 2024 also advised that doing so was the only way to rule out pests in the floorboards. This meant the landlord’s previous reasoning no longer applied.
The landlord internally discussed, as part of its complaint investigation, whether it should follow that recommendation. It has not provided any evidence of any conclusions or reasoning for why it did not do so. This was despite us specifically requesting that information. In the absence of that evidence, we cannot conclude that the decision was evidence-based or reasonable.
As such, while the landlord has provided evidence of taking multiple reasonable and proactive steps to resolve the reported pest issues, it has not shown it took all reasonable steps, or appropriately considered all pest control recommendations. We therefore find there has been a service failure.
We cannot determine, based on the evidence provided, whether or not inspecting for access holes under the floorboards would have changed the overall outcome. This is because while the pest control operatives reported evidence of pests under the floorboards on some visits, they found no evidence of any pests on other visits.
However, had it done so, the landlord would have been able to confirm whether or not there were access points under the floorboards allowing pests in. Depending on the outcome of the inspection it would then be able to either complete further proofing works or explain to the resident that there were no access points. And its pest control contractors confirmed it could not do the latter unless it lifted the floorboards to look for access points.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the recommendation was declined for a reason, or simply overlooked. As such, the landlord must reassess it to determine whether or not it should follow that recommendation. If it concludes it should do so, it must arrange the inspection. If it concludes it does not need to do so, it must explain this to the resident in writing, together with its reasoning.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been a service failure with regard to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rats at her property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the service failure identified in this determination.
2. Reassess the pest control contractor’s recommendation to lift floorboards and inspect for access holes in the property. It must then (depending on the outcome of its assessment) either arrange to follow the recommendation, or write to the resident to confirm its decision and reasoning behind it, within 6 weeks of this determination.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.