London Borough of Camden Council (202405194)

Background

1. The resident reported seeing mice to the landlord. Its attempts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, so the resident instructed a private pest control company which found several entry points. The resident believes the landlord was negligent to have missed these and made a formal complaint, asking it to reimburse her for the private treatment costs. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s sensory-related vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to a mice infestation and request for private treatment reimbursement.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:

a. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to a mice infestation and request for private treatment reimbursement.

b.  Reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord incorrectly categorised the mice infestation to require a routine response instead of an urgent one. It failed to properly consider the risk of infection and food-poisoning particularly with a young child resident. The landlord did not consider the impact on the resident who was autistic with sensory issues.
6. The landlord failed to follow its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We found it made reasonable redress to the resident.

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.

7. On 6 November 2023, the resident reported seeing mice in their property to the landlord. It made an appointment to carry out treatment on 28 November 2023 (16 working days later). An incomplete record refers to a subsequent appointment 2 weeks after that. The landlord’s pest control policy says it will respond to reports of issues with mice within 3 days. Therefore, the appointment being scheduled within 16 days of the initial report was not reasonable.
8. The landlord’s pest control policy as published on its website states it will make “up to 2 visits” to deal with mice infestation. The landlord is legally obligated to keep its district mice-free because of the risk to public health and damage to buildings from gnawing. The British Pest Control Association (BPCA), which is referred to on the landlord’s website, advises that a professional pest control company is contacted as traditional baiting and poisoning methods may fail. They say that mice heard during the day and not just at night could indicate a more serious infestation.
9. The BPCA says that, although blocking potential external entry points can help prevent infestation, it is important to get rid of an existing one quickly. Their website states: “You should focus on low level gaps first as these are the most likely areas for mice to enter.” The resident provided photographs of low-level gaps to the landlord on 29 February 2024. The photographs suggest the gaps had been there some time, so it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have identified and addressed them promptly. However, the evidence suggests it did not.
10. The landlord identified one entry hole during its first visit on 28 November 2023. It told the resident that mice were coming through an open-air vent in the kitchen and it put down a poison sheet. Its records state “sightings x3 weeks ago, baited kitchen area”.

11. On 6 December 2023, the landlord’s records show the resident reported an “increase of activity”, which the BPCA advises may indicate that mice were breeding. Our September 2023 Insight Report highlights that landlords should prioritise identifying the source of a pest infestation, keep residents informed with progress and timescales and of alternative actions it may take. The resident asked about alternative treatment because the existing treatment was not working, but there is no evidence the landlord responded. Although the landlord showed it was willing to address the issue by booking an appointment on 4 January 2024, this was 17 working days later. We consider this delay excessive and find that the landlord should have prioritised the matter.
12. The resident told us she was distressed and that the situation “got to the point I didn’t want to come home.” There is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered temporary alternative accommodation as a possible interim measure, as highlighted in our March 2026 Insight Report: learning from severe maladministration.
13. The landlord attended the property on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s record states there were 2 sightings since its first visit. The landlord confirmed it used traps, that no bait had been taken, and the resident had paid for an air vent cover.
14. The landlord’s records show its third visit was on 4 January 2024 at 10.30am. Its policy states the landlord will “try to telephone” if a resident breaks an appointment but if no contact is made then the job will be cancelled. There is no evidence the landlord tried to telephone the resident, who said she was at the Post Office. The resident said she does not remember the landlord trying to phone her and “would not have left the house” had she been told a specific time. The evidence shows the landlord attended once before despite the resident informing it, she was not available. It is unclear from the evidence if she had been given a time for this appointment.
15. The landlord’s records also show it left a calling card requesting the resident make contact to rearrange the appointment, which accords with its repairs policy. The records do not show that the resident responded to this request. There is evidence indicating ongoing communication failures and the resident said she was “sent in circles” and “always chasing” because otherwise issues remained unresolved. The resident said she was overwhelmed, the landlord was aware she was autistic with a learning disability, and so less able to manage the additional administrative burden this caused her. We heard the resident explain this to the landlord in a recorded telephone call. We do not think the landlord duly considered the known vulnerabilities of the resident. Our March 2026 Insight Report highlights that landlords should make sure there are follow-up appointments while it tries to eradicate pest problems. There is no evidence the landlord did this.
16. The resident instructed a private pest control company to investigate on 28 February 2024, which is 78 working days after she first reported mice to the landlord. Due to the health risk and a young child resident, our investigation found the landlord failed to take the infestation seriously enough. It did not consider the impact on the household’s health or wellbeing. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to establish for itself if its treatment attempts had been successful. We found no evidence it did this or followed up with the resident in any way. Therefore, we consider the resident had acted reasonably.
17. On 29 February 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. She said the landlord had visited twice and missed several entry points. She said she saw another mouse and then arranged for private treatment. The resident provided it with 10 photographs of various gaps and mice droppings, and the £200 invoice she had paid.
18. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that several repairs were carried out to the building’s perimeter. It explained that pest control was a process of elimination and the best long-term solution was blocking external potential entry points. The landlord was reasonable to state that blocking external entry was the best action long-term. However, the BPCA states that solution is appropriate for prevention not for eradicating an existing infestation. The landlord said the private company’s report did not identify where it failed. We do not know if they were asked to comment on the landlord’s actions or felt it appropriate to do so if they were so instructed. However, the resident’s photographs of internal entry points for the mice suggest the holes were likely to have existed when the landlord first visited.
19. The landlord understood why the resident may have preferred a private company to get rid of the mice more quickly. It viewed this as the resident’s choice which was not a justification for reimbursement of the costs. The landlord said it was prepared to continue its own treatments and attended again but had no access, and the resident failed to re-arrange. It is positive the landlord said it was prepared to continue although its policy states “up to 2 visits”. The reason for this limitation is unclear. However, the landlord’s response and handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement was fair in the circumstances.
20. Our compensation guidance sets out that compensation is appropriate to put things right where the landlord’s failing amounts to maladministration with significant impact on the resident. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable with sensory issues. It failed to duly consider the impact on her or how it affected her young child. In ordering £400 in total compensation, we have considered the overall stress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s handling of the mice infestation.

21. The landlord’s policy sets out a 2-stage process. The policy states the landlord should acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days. It states it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. Its policy timeframe for stage 2 complaints is not compliant with the Code that stipulates 20 working days.
22. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 29 February 2024. It failed to acknowledge the complaint which does not comply with its complaint policy or the Code. The landlord’s full response was due on 19 March 2024 but was sent 35 working days late and did not comply with its comply or the Code.
23.  On 4 April 2024, after hearing nothing, the resident asked the landlord how to escalate her complaint. The landlord was fair to say it was unable to escalate until its investigation was complete and the outcome was issued. However, its records show its awareness on several occasions that the response was overdue. Yet it failed to act even on its own reminders. We consider the landlord failed to acknowledge delays or recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact on her from both. It should have updated her about the complaint’s progression and revised the date when a full response could be expected.
24. On 9 May 2024, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. Again, the landlord failed to acknowledge it in compliance with its policy and the Code. It sent its final response on 20 May 2024 which complied with its policy timescale but not with the Code. It apologised for its late response at stage 1 and offered to pay the resident £40 in compensation. This aligns with its policy for delayed complaint responses, and we consider it reasonable redress to put things right.

Learning

25. The Code requires landlords to “look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint” to consider service improvements. The landlord did not identify any of the failures outlined in this report apart from delays in complaint-handling. Therefore, the landlord missed opportunities for learning, and its policy states a commitment to this. It may find our March 2026 Insight Report useful and consider staff training in this area.