Guildford Borough Council (202539008)

Decision
Case ID	202539008
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Guildford Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Introductory Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported rats in the loft of her flat to the landlord in May 2025, shortly after her tenancy begun. She also raised concerns about related repairs and safety at the property, including ventilation, electrical works, and the shower pump. She complained to the landlord about its response to the pest infestation and the property repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a pest infestation.
   2. Reports of repairs.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to a pest infestation

4. The landlord delayed responding to the pest infestation at the resident’s block of flats. It acknowledged this and apologised, however, it did not offer any compensation to try and put things right. The pest infestation and related repairs have not been resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs

5. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s reports of repairs. It apologised for this but did not offer any compensation to try and put things right. The repairs remain unresolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord did not fully comply with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 provided by a manager 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 25 May 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 broken down as: £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of a pest infestation £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of repairs The landlord must pay the resident directly and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it is completed by the due date and by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. 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 the surveyor inspects the rat infestation and outstanding repairs for the property 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 rat 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 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

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider if further compensation is appropriate in line with its policy once repairs are complete.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 October 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she was disappointed it had not told her about the rat problem in the block before she signed her tenancy. She said rat activity in her loft kept her awake at night and affected her mental health. She said she wanted the contaminated loft insulation replaced and the electrical wiring inspected. The resident said she checked the landlord’s pest contractor and found it was listed as ‘dormant’ on Companies House. She said she refused this contractor access and told the landlord. The resident said her extractor fans did not vent externally and instead discharged air into the loft space.
20 October 2025	The landlord replied at stage 1 and said it instructed a new pest control company to conduct works at the block. It said once the pest-proofing works were complete, it would inspect the loft wiring, replace the loft insulation and change the extractor fans so they vented externally. The resident escalated her complaint the same day and said the landlord had not answered her questions in her complaint. She asked why it did not tell her the block had a rat infestation. She asked why it had not resolved the issue and why her extractor fans had not been properly installed.
14 November 2025	The resident raised a new complaint. She said she was concerned about the fire risk for the bathroom water pressure pump if it overheats. She said she could not disconnect the underfloor bathroom heating from the mains supply. She said the main switches were located out of sight and built in shelving obstructed access to the immersion tank.
20 November 2025	The landlord replied at stage 2 to the resident’s first complaint. It said it was aware of rodent activity in the block, but not within her loft space before she signed her tenancy. It apologised that she became aware of the issue after moving in. The landlord said it did not directly appoint the pest control company as it was subcontracted by its contractor. It said its contractor management process now included checks on any third-party providers used.
2 December 2025	The landlord replied at stage 1 to the second complaint. It said it replaced the shower pump which was fully operational. It said it had arranged an electrical test with a different company, as the resident requested, to identify any additional works. It said it would contact her within 2 weeks to book the appointment, and it would complete any necessary repairs promptly. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint due to its delay in dealing with her concerns and repairs.
3 December 2025	The resident escalated her second complaint. She said she lived in constant anxiety using the shower because of the previous pump failure and the landlord’s handling of her repairs. She said she was concerned the property received an electrical safety certificate when she had since discovered electrical faults. The resident said she felt unsafe when the landlord attends her property and the workers do not have identification. She said at times the workers were unaware of the reason for attending.
6 January 2026	The landlord replied at stage 2 to the second complaint. It apologised for its poor handling of repairs, inspections and communication. It said an independent electrical inspection identified the need for further works in the resident’s loft. However, it could not carry out the work until it had resolved the rodent issue. The landlord said pest control treatment was in progress and once complete the electrical repairs could be started. It said it would remind staff the importance of following up repairs and clear communication with residents. The landlord also said it would reinforce the standards for booking repair appointments and attending with identification.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the pest infestation was ongoing and the repairs were outstanding. She wanted both to be resolved.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation
Finding	Maladministration

7. On 5 May 2025, the resident told the landlord she could hear rats in her loft, and the noise was very loud at night. The landlord raised a repair for pest control to inspect the loft space. The landlord’s policy says it is responsible for pest management; however, it does not give timescales for dealing with infestations. Its repairs policy says it will attend routine repairs within 30 working days.
8. On 22 May 2025, the resident reported an issue with the kitchen fan, and the landlord raised a repair. It has not provided evidence to show when this repair was completed. The resident said it was during this repair the landlord found the extractor fans were not installed correctly.
9. On 28 May 2025, the landlord raised a repair for pest control at the resident’s property. The landlord’s repairs log showed a target date of 3 July 2025, but it did not record details of when work took place.
10. On 3 June 2025, the resident told the landlord the rats were highly active in her loft, and she’d had little sleep since moving in. She said the loft insulation had been damaged, contaminated, and she was worried for her health and the safety of the property. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
11. On 10 June 2025, the resident asked the landlord to remove the traps in the loft as she felt they were not working. She also asked when it would resolve the rat infestation. The landlord has not provided evidence of a response to the resident.
12. On 1 September 2025, the resident told the landlord she had put a camera in the loft and had seen evidence of a rat infestation throughout the whole block. She said she did not want the current pest contractor to attend anymore as she thought they were not completing the job properly. She asked the landlord what action it would take for the pest infestation. The landlord has not provided evidence of a response to the resident.
13. On 2 September 2025, the landlord’s repair log confirmed it had been treating the resident’s property for 3 months. It said it had removed 5 rats. It said it recommended a cut back of the shrubbery from the building and a roof inspection.
14. On 11 September 2025, the landlord’s notes said it would arrange a joint visit with the resident and the pest contractor. It said if she no longer wanted the contractor to attend it would remove the traps, however, it said it did not have an alternative pest contractor to use. The landlord has not provided evidence of this joint visit or the outcome.
15. On 1 October 2025, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy it had not resolved the rat infestation and it had not told her about the issues before she signed her tenancy. She said she was also unhappy with the pest contractor.
16. On 20 October 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had instructed a new pest contractor to deal with the infestation. It said when the infestation was resolved it would complete the outstanding repairs in her loft and to her extractor fans. It was reasonable at stage 1 for the landlord to apologise and to arrange a new pest contractor.
17. However, the resident had lived with the rat infestation and waited for the kitchen extractor and loft repairs for around 5 months. While the infestation continued, the landlord could not complete these repairs. She was concerned for the safety of her flat and the delays likely caused her distress and inconvenience.
18. On 20 October 2025, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said the landlord had not answered the concerns she raised. On 13 November 2025, the landlord raised a job for pest control work and to remove and replace the loft insulation affected by the rats. This had a target date of 23 December 2025; however, its repair records do not say whether the work was completed.
19. On 20 November 2025, the landlord replied at stage 2 of its complaints process. It apologised for not telling the resident about rodent activity in the block before she signed her tenancy. It explained it had not directly appointed the pest contractor. It said it had changed its internal process to include checks on third party contractors. These were reasonable actions by the landlord.
20. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2; however, it did not offer any compensation to try and put things right for her. By this point it had been around 6 months since she reported the rat activity. Although the landlord’s policy does not have timescales for pest control, this delay was significant when compared with its routine repairs target of 28 days.
21. Our role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
22. In summary, the landlord said the resident refused some contractors for the pest control work and this contributed to the delay in getting the infestation resolved. It recognised its own part in the delays to resolving the infestation and repairs at both complaint stages. It said it had updated its contract management process. It apologised to the resident and upheld her complaint. These were reasonable steps by the landlord.
23. However, the issues remained unresolved, and it made no offer of compensation to put things right. It failed to work proactively with the pest contractors to resolve the issues, follow-up on works or keep the resident updated on progress. It’s lack of repair notes or details of visits are a record keeping failure. The resident continues to live with rat activity in her loft and with repairs that cannot be completed until the infestation has been stopped. She said she was concerned about the safety of her flat. This will have likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
24. We have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure that has been acknowledged by the landlord, but it has failed to address the detriment to her.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to repairs at the resident’s property.
Finding	Maladministration

25. On 6 May 2025, the resident reported her water pump and water facilities were not working. On 12 May 2025, the landlord raised a job for this repair, however, its repair records do not show when this repair was completed.
26. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend by the next day if there is a risk to safety or damage if not fixed quickly. It says urgent repairs will be completed within 7 working days and routine repairs within 30 calendar days.
27. On 30 July 2025, the resident raised concerns regarding the ventilation in her property. The landlord logged an inspection; however, it has not provided any evidence this took place. On 12 November 2025, she raised a repair to replace the water pump under the bath. The landlord’s records do not show when this repair was completed.
28. On 14 November 2025, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she had concerns over the electrics and safety of her property.
29. On 2 December 2025, the landlord issues its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had repaired the shower water pump and would complete all other repairs. It acknowledged it had not handled her concerns promptly and apologised for the delay. It was reasonable of the landlord to uphold the complaint and commit to completing the outstanding repairs. However, it made no offer of compensation to try and put things right for her.
30. On 3 December 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was concerned about the validity of the electrical safety certificate for the property when she had found these faults. She said she was unhappy with staff conduct when they visited her property.
31. On 6 January 2026. the landlord replied at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said electrical works could not be conducted until the rat infestation had been resolved. It said it would remind staff about communication and having identification on them when visiting properties. It was reasonable at stage 2 for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns regarding staff communication and behaviour on visits. However, the landlord told the resident at stage 1 it would complete the outstanding repairs, and it was unable to do this due to the rat infestation in the loft. This will have likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
32. Our role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
33. In summary, the landlord’s record keeping does not show when the water pump repairs were completed or whether the inspection on ventilation took place. Its lack of clear records means we cannot determine how it resolved the reported issues or if it complied with its own repair policy. The landlord said ongoing pest activity in the loft, access restrictions and issues with pest contractors had impacted its ability to resolve repairs within the standard timescales. This has meant the resident’s safety-related concerns have remained outstanding.
34. The landlord did not provide interim measures to manage the risks during this period. It was unable to compete repairs, despite committing at stage 1 to do so. This, alongside the unresolved repairs and safety concerns will likely have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
35. We have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure that has been acknowledged by the landlord, but it has failed to address the detriment to her.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

36. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
37. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s first complaint at either stage 1 or 2. It’s responses at both stages of the process for the first complaint were delayed by around 2 working days. It did not recognise or apologise for the lack of acknowledgement or the delay in its responses to her.
38. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s second complaint at stage 1 or 2. It’s stage 1 response was delayed by around 1 day which it apologised for. Its stage 2 response was sent to her within its policy time.
39. In summary, although the landlord’s complaint response delays were minimal, it did not recognise these delays. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints at either stage. We find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to apologise to her.

Learning

40. The landlord should ensure it complies with its repairs and complaint handling policy timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. In May 2023, we published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. We expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. Clear, accurate and easily accessible records provide an audit train and help landlords identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

42. The landlord should keep residents informed of any delays. In this case there was no evidence to show it kept her updated about its actions. As outlined in our spotlight report on repairs complaints, we expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in communicating with residents and identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.