London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202334996)

Decision
Case ID	202334996
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. In December 2023, the resident reported that pests were entering his property through the toilet and an external drainage pipe. He raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.

5. The landlord failed to resolve the drainage‑related pest infestation within a reasonable timeframe. It did not act in line with its own repairs and pest control policies and demonstrated poor coordination and oversight of its contractors. These failures led to avoidable delays, prolonged disruption to the resident, and unnecessary time and trouble.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord failed to handle the complaint in line with its own policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There were delays at both stages and poor communication about complaint timescales. The evidence does not show that the landlord identified any learning or provided appropriate redress. These failures caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 30 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350, made up as follows: £250 for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 30 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 December 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident stated that: He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of pests entering his property, including delays in taking action and poor communication. This caused him distress and left him feeling unsafe. He wanted the landlord to carry out drainage repairs and preventative works. His request included fitting non‑return valves, blocking drains, cleaning the drainage system, and completing a camera survey to prevent further pest access.
20 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
10 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Within it the landlord said: It attended the property on 7 and 8 December 2023. It found no blockage, jetted the stack pipe, and noted the resident’s report that rats were entering the property via the toilet. It raised follow‑on works and attended again on 4 January 2024 to fit non‑return valves. It ordered 5 rat blockers for installation during the week commencing 8 January 2024.
16 January 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to Stage 2. He said that pests had continued to enter the property via the toilet and that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue, despite the visits and works it had carried out.
8 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
20 February 2024	We asked the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 written response by 27 March 2024.
3 April 2024	We asked the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 written response by 10 April 2024.
19 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord said: It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that pests had re‑entered the property after works were completed in January 2024. Drainage works were carried out in December 2023 and January 2024, including jetting the external stack pipe and fitting non‑return valves. A further visit on 18 March 2024 identified a toilet blockage and a non‑return valve that had become jammed open and had not been reported at the time. It apologised for the delays, confirmed the valve was refitted on 16 April 2024, and noted that on 19 April 2024 the resident agreed the issue had been resolved.
23 April 2024	The resident told this Service that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses and sought compensation for the impact the matter had on him and for damage to his property.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate and why

7. The resident told us that the pest infestation impacted his physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident told this Service that he sought compensation from the landlord for damage to his personal property, including the toilet flooring. However, it is not the role of this Service to make a determination of liability or compensation for damage to personal belongings and therefore falls outside of the scope of this investigation. Should he wish to pursue a claim, the resident may request the landlord’s insurer details.

What we found

9. The lease agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for all pipes, drains, wastewater, and sewage ducts. It is not disputed that where pests enter a property due to defects or failures in an external drain or stack pipe, responsibility for remedying this rests with the landlord.
10. The landlord’s pest control procedure includes guidance on the treatment of rats in drainage systems. This requires prompt investigation at the first visit, a follow‑up visit within seven days to monitor activity and replenish bait if required and continued follow‑up until pest activity has ceased and the case is closed.
11. This Service’s pest guidance similarly expects landlords to act promptly following reports of pest issues and to complete any necessary repairs in line with their repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs, including blocked drains and pipes, should be completed within 20 working days.
12. The evidence shows that from 29 November 2023 to 8 December 2023 the landlord and its contractors identified the likely cause of the pest issue and the need for remedial drainage works. Operatives reported no permanent blockage but identified the need to clean the main drain and install a non‑return valve to prevent rats accessing the property. While some interim actions were taken on 13 and 15 December 2023, including rebaiting and jet washing the stack pipe, the landlord’s internal records dated 22 December 2023 show confusion between pest and drainage contractors about responsibility for the next steps. This poor coordination between the landlord and its contractors delayed the completion of the further works.
13. Further attendances took place in early January 2024, and a rat trap and non‑return valve were fitted on 9 January 2024. However, subsequent inspections on 12 and 15 February 2024 identified further drainage issues, indicating that the earlier works had not provided a lasting solution. When contractors attended again on 18 March 2024, they found that the rat blocker had become jammed and was out of place. While the work was identified as requiring urgent attention, the evidence shows that responsibility for refitting the valve was passed between contractors. As a result, the non‑return valve was not refitted and the rat trap unblocked until 16 April 2024.
14. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 25 occasions between November 2023 and April 2024, which included making 13 appointments. While most appointments were attended, the frequency of contact and ongoing issues did not prompt effective oversight or escalation to ensure the repairs were completed. The landlord did not demonstrate that it used these repeated contacts as a trigger to review progress or address the causes of delay.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the repair works were not fully completed until 16 April 2024, nearly five months after the issue was first reported. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s 20‑working‑day routine repair timescale and was not consistent with either its repairs policy or pest control procedure.
16. In summary, there were avoidable and prolonged delays in resolving the drainage‑related pest infestation. The evidence shows missed opportunities to progress the case, failures in contractor reporting, and poor coordination between pest control and drainage services, which all contributed to the overall delay. Taken together, this demonstrates that the landlord did not deliver a reasonable standard of service or adequately manage and monitor the repairs.
17. As a result, the resident experienced prolonged disruption while living with an unresolved pest infestation, causing avoidable distress and inconvenience. A planned family visit over the Christmas period was cancelled due to the ongoing issue. The resident also invested a significant amount of time and effort repeatedly contacting the landlord and its contractors, particularly through frequent telephone calls, in an attempt to have the issue resolved.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for redress where service failures have adversely affected a resident. However, no compensation was offered despite the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced.
19. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its own policies and did not complete the necessary repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The evidence shows limited learning to prevent similar failings, particularly in relation to coordination and oversight of its contractors. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £250, in line with our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

20. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaint process, which is in line with the Code.
21. The evidence shows that the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint within the prescribed timescales at either stage. It took 18 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 68 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was despite 2 separate contacts from us requesting that the landlord provide a final response to the resident. The landlord also did not agree revised response timescales with the resident.
22. As a result, the landlord exceeded the timescales set out in both its complaint policy and the Code at stages 1 and 2. It took over 4 months from the resident’s initial complaint for the landlord to issue its final response. This indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s management and oversight of its complaint handling process. The delays meant the resident waited longer than necessary for a resolution and spent avoidable time and trouble chasing updates and contacting us.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial redress where service failures have adversely affected a resident. However, despite the complaint handling delays, it did not offer the resident compensation. In addition, the landlord did not acknowledge or demonstrate any learning or service improvements arising from its complaint handling shortcomings.
24. . To reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 in compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for circumstances where a landlord has failed to deliver an appropriate standard of service and has not fully acknowledged or put those failings right.

Learning

25. In this case, the landlord did not manage the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy or the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord could review its arrangements for coordinating contractors to ensure responsibilities are clearly defined and that findings are accurately reported and recorded, so that remedial works are progressed without avoidable delay.

Communication

27. The landlord could recognise the importance of offering appropriate compensation and demonstrating meaningful learning, including improving communication where service failures have caused distress, inconvenience, or time and trouble to residents.