London Borough of Lewisham (202427559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427559

London Borough of Lewisham

2 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block. The resident has young children, including 1 with a condition which means they often eat non-edible items. The landlord says it has a vulnerability alert for the resident but does not refer to one for her children.
The resident started to experience mice issues from around March 2024. She initially engaged her own pest contractor to do treatment and proofing. However, after the issue continued, the landlord’s repairs team and the local authority pest control carried out proofing and flat and block treatment.
The resident raised a complaint on 11 October 2024.
1. She noted that after she had reported mice many times, the repairs and pest control teams had done proofing, but mice had returned each time as they had chewed through expanding foam or found other entry points.
2. She detailed the impact the issue was having on her. She also explained how there was a risk of one of her children eating poison and droppings.
3. She noted that she had experienced mice again at the weekend and asked for a contractor to attend for a repair she had raised as soon as possible. She also asked the landlord to remove all the kitchen units and skirting board, and for further proofing to be with sand and cement, since wire wool and expanding foam had been unsuccessful in removing the mice.
The landlord inspected with its contractor on 15 October 2024. Following this, it asked its contractor to quote for works to:
1. remove all the kitchen units and check for any holes and block off.
2. cover the vents behind the washing machine/ cooker with a mesh covering that still allows ventilation.
3. take off the bath panel and check for any holes as well as fill any visible holes around property.
In correspondence around this time the resident noted the landlord had agreed at the visit to proof with sand and cement.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 October 2024.
1. It said it was sorry about the issue and impact on the resident and her children.
2. It said that it had raised additional proofing works to its contractor. It said they would schedule an appointment with the resident, and would advise the landlord further if they deemed that alternative proofing measures was appropriate after their visit.
3. It attached a leaflet with advice on pest control.
The resident said she was dissatisfied with the decision on 6 November 2024. She said that she had seen more mice droppings but had not heard anything from the repairs team.
The landlord provided its final response on 17 December 2024.
1. It apologised that the resident had not been contacted at the time of her escalation about additional pest proofing works. It said it had discussed this internally and had been told these were now completed. It also noted it was doing ongoing block treatment at the resident’s block and she had reported no mice at a 30 November 2024 visit.
2. It said that it trusted that proofing works and pest control treatment had caused the mice issue to subside. It said it was returning to the block on 18 January 2025 and would continue treatment if ongoing issues were reported then. It said that as it had done a block treatment the resident was entitled to free treatment until March 2025. It asked the resident to let it know if it had not addressed her concerns.
The resident is unhappy as mice have kept returning after the landlord has done proofing. She subsequently made a further complaint to the landlord, and after a pest control visit in August 2025, it has agreed to remove 3 kitchen units and proof with a sand and cement mix.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident made a new complaint around May or June 2025 which the landlord responded to at stage 2 on 8 September 2025. This investigation mainly focuses on events from around May 2024, when the resident contacted the landlord about mice, to December 2024, when the landlord provided its first stage 2 response. The resident has the option to ask the Ombudsman to investigate the new complaint if she is unhappy with the new response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation

The resident has raised dissatisfaction that mice have repeatedly returned to her property and feels that the landlord have failed to do adequate proofing. She has said the ongoing mice issue has impacted her mental health. She has highlighted that she has young children, including 1 with a condition which means they often eat non-edible items and are at risk of eating poison and droppings. The Ombudsman notes that we do not have the expertise to say what proofing the landlord should do, but we can assess how it has responded to the pest reports.
The landlord’s pest policy details how it handles reports. It is not normally responsible for treatment but it has responsibilities if issues are linked to disrepair. It aims to focus on prevention rather than reactive treatment. It aims to work in partnership with the council pest control, do block treatment programmes, and offer free pest control when these are running. It will take a lead in aspects such as communication to ensure a joined-up service. It will consider if residents need to be temporarily moved. Our guidance reflects these expectations and adds that landlords should keep effective records, get expert advice, and not repeat actions that are not working.
The landlord handled matters in line with the above in some ways. The pest control did around 5 visits to the resident’s flat between June and November 2024, to carry out treatment, which works out as a monthly frequency. The environment team commenced a block treatment programme in August 2024 which has continued into 2025. This has involved visits on a monthly basis to do block treatment and checks of mice activity with individual residents. The landlord internally considered a decant in October 2024. The resident does not dispute that the landlord has done proofing in the property on various occasions. However, aspects of its handling was not satisfactory.
The landlord’s recordkeeping and evidence quality comes across as poor. The landlord has not provided property repairs logs and proofing records, despite being requested before and after the start of the investigation. The resident does not dispute proofing has been done and the evidence suggests the landlord may have done proofing on 26 June, 22 July and 2 September 2024. However, we have seen no clear records about this. The evidence quality is not satisfactory given the landlord’s obligations to maintain effective records, and to provide relevant information under paragraph 10 of our Scheme.
The landlord’s communication to the resident comes across as poor, and does not reflect its aim to take a lead in this. For example, on 29 May 2024, it internally noted that her pest contractor had requested written confirmation that they could remove skirting boards to bait under kitchen units, and that they were not liable to secure these back. It did not respond until almost a month later.
We have not seen the response, but we understand the resident was considered responsible for securing skirting back. This was in line with its policy that tenants are responsible for damage caused by parties they employ. However, the delay in clarifying responsibilities was unhelpful and meant the resident did not have timely information to consider her options. This is understood to have meant that her contractor did not remove skirting and do all the baiting they felt was necessary at that time.
The landlord generally does not show how it sought to consider and remedy potential entry points into the building, which is not satisfactory. It has wider obligations for the building structure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and would also be expected to manage risks in a way that reflects the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It does not show how it followed up proofing recommendations the resident’s contractor and the pest control reportedly made. It does not show it sought to work in partnership with pest control and have a clear approach to preventing, and not just treating, the issues. It does not show it clearly discussed proofing with pest control and established what was appropriate in the resident’s case.
The resident asked the landlord for its support on 20 June 2024 and noted that an operative had said mice were coming from a radiator kickboard. The landlord does not show how it sought to investigate this. The environment team said on 3 July 2024 that there was an underlying reason for pests that treatment would not resolve, and that their and private reports had recommended proofing. It is not evident how the landlord sought to follow up this.
The landlord is understood to have proofed with expanding foam, but the resident said on 16 July and 6 October 2024 that pest control staff told her sand, cement and wire wool was needed to make proofing effective. She also detailed proofing required in some August 2024 correspondence, which the environment team seemed to endorse when forwarding to the repairs team. It is not evident the landlord discussed this with pest control at the time. It is not evident that it considered use of sand and cement until May and September 2025, closer to the timeframe of her more recent complaint. It could have shown it reviewed the use of expanding foam with pest control, as we have seen cases where this has been considered unsuitable for proofing.
The environment team said in early October 2024 that the repairs team needed to do more proofing, and suggested a joint visit, while the repairs team said pest control needed to find the entry points that were allowing the mice to enter the building. The landlord does not show that it followed this up, or that there was ever a joint visit with the environment / pest control team and the repairs team, to show that there was a sufficiently collaborative approach.
The pest control did 2 visits on 8 and 10 October 2024 and said proofing needed to be referred to the repairs team. This included a recommendation to re–do proofing that the resident had done herself which was not to a high standard. It is not evident that the landlord re-did the resident’s proofing.
The landlord’s repairs supervisor did an inspection on 15 October 2024 with a repairs contractor and asked the contractor to quote for works. This included works to remove kitchen units and a bath panel, and to fill holes visible behind these and elsewhere in the property. The resident noted in contemporaneous correspondence with the landlord that it had also agreed to do the proofing with sand and cement.
The evidence refers to a proofing appointment on 24 October 2024, but it is not clear what works were done then. It is also not evident that the works recommended on 15 October 2024 happened, and the resident seems to dispute they did in a recent call with us. It is not evident that the landlord sought to progress such works until September 2025, in the timeframe of the more recent complaint, after pest control recommended removal of kitchen units and filling of holes with sand and cement at an August 2025 visit. This potentially means the October 2024 agreed action to remove kitchen units was delayed by 11 months.
The landlord’s 17 December 2024 stage 2 response said its repairs team advised that some additional proofing works were completed, but it is not evident what these works were or when they were done. The landlord itself seems to have been in doubt about the works when it provided its stage 2 response, as it internally noted that while the repairs team said the works were complete, some system records showed the works as abandoned.
The more recent events are not our main focus for this complaint, but it is evident that a repairs supervisor post-inspected proofing works in June 2025. This type of post-proofing monitoring was not evident previously. The landlord has also more recently arranged to remove kitchen cupboards to proof behind them. This incremental approach to proofing was also not evident previously.
The Ombudsman understands that mice issues can be challenging and may require multiple treatments and proofing inside and outside properties before they are resolved. The ongoing nature of the resident’s mice issue therefore does not necessarily mean that the landlord will have failed in its service and obligations, if it could clearly show that it had tried to resolve the issue in a reasonable, timely and effective manner and in line with good practice.
In this case, the landlord has failed to show that it has had a clear and effective approach. It fails to show that it has had a clear plan for proofing that has been informed by pest control or other expert advice. It fails to show that it has clearly investigated and considered mice entry points externally and within the resident’s home. It fails to show it has had a clear plan to effectively monitor its proofing in conjunction with the pest control treatment. It fails to show it has done all it could to avoid the mice issues continuing to the present.
The above and a lack of evidence for a clear approach is not satisfactory, particularly given the resident has repeatedly stressed the impact on her mental health, and said that 1 of her children has a condition that puts them at risk of eating mice poison and droppings. This should have prompted more effective management and ownership of her ongoing mice issue than is evident. The resident will have understandably been caused much worry by the issue, which the lack of effective management of the issue will have added to. The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response about mice.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged a complaint on 26 June 2024 and said it aimed to respond by 10 July 2024. The resident said she wanted to escalate the complaint on 17 July 2024 as she had not received a response. The landlord was asked for records related to this complaint but has not supplied these. It is not evident that the July 2024 complaint progressed and was responded to.
The landlord’s 31 October 2024 stage 1 response said that a repair was raised on 10 October 2024, the resident would be contacted to schedule an appointment for this, and the contractors would tell the landlord if further proofing was needed. This failed to provide any substantive detail about previous events, such as the outcome to a mid-October 2024 visit by a repairs supervisor and contractor, or the outcome to a 24 October 2024 visit which the evidence suggests was for proofing. The landlord therefore investigated the complaint in a limited way at stage 1.
The landlord’s 17 December 2024 stage 2 response said it had been told that additional proofing works were completed. It noted that it was doing block treatment at the building and that on 30 November 2024 the resident had reported “no” to mice. It said it was returning to do more block treatment in January 2025 and would continue to do treatment if she reported ongoing issues at that visit.
This again investigated the complaint in a limited way. It did not clarify what additional proofing works were completed, when they were done, and if this was in line with what had been identified by pest control visits or the mid-October 2024 visit by a repairs supervisor and contractor. It also internally noted that while the repairs team said the job was completed, its system said the job had been abandoned. While it invited the resident to let it know if it had not resolved her issues, it is not satisfactory that it does not show it investigated this further.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not satisfactory. The resident has made at least 3 complaints, and it potentially failed to respond to a June 2024 complaint, before the October 2024 complaint. The resident should not have had to make multiple complaints, and if the landlord had handled matters better, this could have avoided her feeling this was necessary. It failed to carry out sufficient and evidence-based investigations. It failed to clarify the outcome to the October 2024 inspection. Its handling meant that the landlord did little to resolve issues or avoid the potential delay there may have been in removing the kitchen units. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks, arrange for a director to apologise to the resident for its handling of the mice infestation and complaint, and the distress caused to her by this. This must be in line with our apology guidance.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £600. This comprises £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the mice infestation, and £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks, arrange for its repairs team to jointly inspect with pest control, to discuss the necessary actions to jointly resolve any mice issues at the block. As part of this it must:
1. Inspect the exterior of the building. It should consider if any repairs actions are required for any potential access points.
2. Inspect the resident’s flat. It should review the effectiveness of any recent treatment and proofing. It should consider if any further repairs actions are required for further points of mice access, including ones near the balcony or that may be hidden behind components such as skirting. It should also review if any expanding foam is present that needs to be replaced with materials endorsed by pest control.
3. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome to the inspections, details of an action plan for any follow up actions, and details of a point of contact who will monitor current treatment and proofing with the resident.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the orders in the timeframes above.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident about whether it should place a vulnerability alert on its system for her children.
The landlord is recommended to review:
1. How it responds to and monitors pest reports and complaints.
2. How it works with pest control, ensures a collaborative approach, ensures that any actions such as proofing is informed by their expertise, and ensures it takes a lead in aspects such as communication to ensure a joined-up service.
3. If any use of expanding foam for proofing by its contractors is appropriate and in line with pest control advice.
4. If any changes are necessary to its pest and repairs policies and procedures.
5. If any staff training is needed to improve its future responses to similar cases.