London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202453230)

Background

1. The property is a first floor flat. Due to communication issues, the resident’s daughter acts as her representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a rodent infestation.
   2. Formal complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord should have done more to investigate and address the cause of the rodent infestation in a timely manner.
6. The stage 1 response was delayed and there were communication failures throughout the complaint process.

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.

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.

7. The landlord is responsible for addressing the source of rodent infestations related to the structure of the building, under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards during the term of the tenancy; and this includes pests being able to access the property. This means, where a resident reports a pest infestation, the landlord should investigate to identify whether there are any structural defects allowing the pests to enter the property. If there are, the landlord is responsible for repairing them and treating the infestation, caused as a result of the defects.
8. The resident has said the rodent infestation has been ongoing for over 10 years. Our investigation has covered the period 12 months before the formal complaint was raised. Anything that happened before February 2024, is considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation.
9. From the evidence we have seen, the resident first reported this matter to the landlord on 20 June 2024. She has said she contacted the landlord to report the issue on a number of occasions before then, but was left unsupported. While we do not doubt the resident, we have not seen evidence of earlier reports, so we cannot comment further on that.
10. On 20 June 2024 the resident reported there were rats in the property and asked the landlord to inspect a section of the kitchen cupboard where they could be entering. Considering the nature of the issue, it was reasonable that the landlord treated this as a non-urgent repair, which its website says it will complete within 20 working days.
11. The landlord attended 13 working days later, on 8 July 2025, and noted it needed to remove some of the kitchen units so the resident’s pest control contractor could lay bait. It subsequently did this 3 working days later, on 12 July 2025. In total the landlord completed this job in 15 working days, which was within its 20 working day timescale.
12. While positive that it did this, there is no evidence the landlord assessed the condition of these areas or considered whether it needed to complete any proofing works to prevent rodents accessing the property. Considering the resident had asked for the inspection of this area as she felt it was where the rodents were entering, the landlord should have considered this and documented its findings. Had it done a more thorough assessment at that time, it may have prevented the ongoing infestation.
13. When the resident made her complaint on 6 February 2025, she reported the infestation was ongoing and that there was a defective waste pipe, which was an entry point. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took any action to investigate until nearly 5 weeks later, on 12 March 2025, when it raised a job. This was only after the resident had requested a repair for further kitchen cupboards to be removed on 5 March 2025, to allow her pest control contractor to access the areas.
14. The landlord attended to investigate and repair the broken waste pipe on 8 April 2025. It noted no damage was found, but that proofing works were carried out to block entry points. This was sensible and in line with its legal obligation. The landlord completed this job 20 working days after it was raised, which was in line with the committed response time for non-urgent repairs. However, as there was a 5 week delay in the landlord raising the job, the overall time taken was too long considering the resident had reported this defect was allowing rodents to access the property. The landlord should have done more to investigate this concern sooner and, overall, there was maladministration in its handling of the reports.
15. After the landlord completed the proofing works, it noted it attended a week later to check for any ongoing pest activity, but found no evidence of any. This proactive follow up was positive and showed it was taking the matter seriously. Since then, the resident has told us the rodent infestation is ongoing. Therefore, we order the landlord to inspect the property to identify any possible causes. A written update is to be sent to her confirming the outcome, including any works it will do with a timescale for completion.
16. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it confirmed it was responsible for addressing pest infestations if they were caused by structural issues, such as holes in the walls or damaged windows. It said there was no legal obligation for it to provide pest control services and this was a paid for service. It advised the resident it was her responsibility to tell it if any works were required as a result of any pest control investigations she had arranged.
17. While correct that the landlord is responsible for addressing pest infestations that are caused by structural issues, this advice is misleading as it suggests the resident is responsible for arranging for pest control investigations to establish this, rather than the landlord. This is not correct, as the landlord should investigate reports of pest infestations in its properties to establish if this is caused by a structural issue. It is unfair and unreasonable for the landlord to expect residents to bear the cost of this type of investigation and then inform it that works are required.
18. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for its pest control policy and it provided a link to the council’s website, with details about its pest control service. This says residents of the landlord who live in flats may be entitled to free pest control services and that any proofing work is at the discretion of the landlord. This is very vague and does not give sufficient detail for residents, or us, to know how the landlord manages pest control issues within its properties. Therefore, we order the landlord to review its approach to pest control and implement a policy/procedure with specific guidance on what issues it will deal with and how it will do this.
19. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her £365 for costs incurred in hiring her own private pest control contractor in June 2024 (£205) and February 2025 (£160). As we have seen no evidence that the resident reported the infestation to the landlord before June 2024, the landlord cannot be expected to have known about this or taken action to resolve it. Therefore, we have not ordered the landlord to reimburse the costs incurred from the June 2024 visit.
20. However, we have determined that the landlord should have done more following the resident’s report in June 2024 to investigate and address this issue; and had it done so, this may have prevented the infestation from continuing. This means, the additional expense incurred in February 2025 may not have been necessary. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £160 as reimbursement for the costs she incurred for a private pest control contractor in February 2025.
21. The resident also asked the landlord to pay her £300 compensation for the impact of this matter on mental and physical health. We cannot determine that there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health, as this is more appropriately assessed via a personal injury claim. What we have assessed is the general distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures.
22. In this case, the resident’s representative has provided significant detail about how this matter has impacted her, but not specifically the resident (her mother). While we have considered the impact on the representative, as she lives in the property, our investigation is on behalf of the resident and not the representative. Therefore, our assessment of the redress required is based on any detriment to the resident.
23. Considering the failures and in consultation with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £175 compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the identified failures.

24. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 10 February 2025, 2 working days after the complaint was raised. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 17 March 2025, 1 working day after the complaint was escalated. These were both within the 5 working day committed timescale set out in the landlord’s complaint policy on its website.
25. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 24 working days. This was more than double the 10 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy on its website. During the period of delay, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident about this or extended the response deadline, which it should have done. It also did not acknowledge the delay in the stage 1 response or offer any redress for this failure. The delay, lack of communication and failure to acknowledge this amounts to maladministration.
26. When the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 17 March 2025, it told the resident it would respond by 31 March 2025. After this, it sent a further update to the resident on 18 or 19 March 2025 telling her it would respond by 2 May 2025. This was more than 4 weeks past the original response deadline and over the 20 working day response time set out in its policy. Despite this, the landlord did not give a reason for this extension. This left the resident feeling confused and disappointed.
27. Ultimately, the landlord sent the stage 2 response on 31 March 2025, as originally committed. This was 11 working days after the complaint was raised, which was within the 20 working day committed response time.
28. The landlord partially upheld the stage 1 complaint, but did not explain why. It is not clear from the landlord’s response what failures it had identified and what action it was taking to put things right. This was confusing for the resident. We order the landlord to deliver training to complaint handling staff on drafting response letters and the importance of explaining the outcome, including what, if any, failures have been identified and how it will put things right.
29. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay her £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not acknowledged these or put things right.

Learning

30. The landlord must raise works orders in a timely manner to avoid delay in investigating issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord must clearly document what action is taken during inspections and if no works are identified/ required, it must note this.

Communication

32. Landlords must clearly set out what they are responsible for and what residents are responsible for in respect of pest control issues. It is good practice for landlords to have a policy and procedure for this issue to ensure clarity and consistency in the handling of these matters.
33. If a complaint response is delayed, the landlord must tell the resident during the period of delay, explain the reason for the delay and give an expected date by which it will respond.
34. The landlord must explain the complaint outcome, including details of any failures identified and actions it will take to put things right.