London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202341595)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat in a purpose-built block of 16 flats. The resident complained about a mice infestation that she said was affecting the whole block. While the resident may have referred to issues affecting other residents, this investigation focuses on matters directly impacting the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord:
   1. Responded to reports of a mice infestation.
   2. Handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a mice infestation.
   2. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s view, fairly resolved the issue with its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of a mice infestation

4. The resident reported a mice infestation in her property. The landlord arranged a pest control company to bait the property and complete an inspection to confirm what proofing works were required. The works were completed and the resident made no further reports.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to show it had carried out an investigation at stage 1. It was also late acknowledging the stage 2 request. However, it recognised these failings, apologised and awarded compensation.

Putting things right

Recommendations

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

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.

6. The resident has stated that the issues with mice have been ongoing since at least 2021. While we do not dispute her account, this investigation will only consider the events which took place up to 12 months prior to the formal complaint. This is in line with our Scheme.
7. The resident reported mice in her property to the landlord on 13 December 2023. There is no evidence of its response, and the job was marked as complete on 10 January 2024. The landlord’s pest policy says that tenants are expected to deal with infestations initially themselves and therefore the landlord would be expected to record its response to indicate what it had advised the resident.
8. In January 2024, the resident questioned the need for communal pest control, stating no mice had been seen and asked the landlord to review its contract as the service was charged to tenants via their service charge. The landlord explained that most tenants would need to agree before it could remove the contract. It wrote to residents of the block on 14 February 2024 to seek their views. This was an appropriate response and showed the landlord considered the resident’s request.
9. On 11 March 2024, the resident reported seeing mice in all rooms of her property. The landlord arranged a pest control visit on 14 March 2024 to lay bait, with follow ups on 10 April and 1 May 2024. No evidence of mice was found, and the bait remained untouched. This showed the landlord took appropriate action in response to the report.
10. On 15 April 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it had received no responses from other tenants, so the communal pest control contract could not be removed. This was reasonable, as the landlord had explained it needed majority agreement to cancel the service.
11. The resident continued to dispute the need for communal pest control. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had written to tenants again and would cancel the contract if most agreed. On 24 May 2024, it informed the resident only she had responded, so the contract could not be cancelled. This was reasonable and showed the landlord followed through on its commitments.
12. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed that proofing work would be arranged. On 5 July 2024, a pest control company inspected and found holes in the bathroom, bedroom and lounge, which they sealed. No entry points were found in the kitchen. This response was appropriate and showed the landlord was committed to following through on its actions.
13. On 5 August 2024, the resident reported mice in the kitchen. The landlord arranged further baiting and pest control attended on 12 August, 21 August and 2 September. Additional proofing was carried out in the kitchen. This showed the landlord responded promptly to the infestation reports.
14. The resident was unhappy that the kitchen proofing was not done at the same time as the rest of the property, as this could have prevented further mice issues. While we understand the distress caused, the landlord was entitled to rely on its contractor’s July report, which found no entry points in the kitchen.
15. Since the proofing works in September 2024, the resident reported no further mice issues and believes the problem has also been resolved in neighbouring flats.
16. The resident told us she would like the landlord to consider pipe repairs and proofing all properties in the block to prevent mice returning.  While we acknowledge her concerns, landlords are not required to carry out repairs or proofing unless there is clear evidence of a defect or ongoing issue. As the landlord successfully resolved the problem, it would be unreasonable for this Service to recommend any further works.
17. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s mice infestation reports to the expected standard. It responded promptly, arranged baiting, inspected the property and completed the recommended proofing, which resolved the issue.

18. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it upheld the complaint but failed to show it had investigated the resident’s concerns. It gave no explanation about the mice issue or what action would be taken. It did not show whether it had followed its policies and procedures or if it had identified any service failure. The response was unreasonable and likely left the resident feeling frustrated, as it gave no reassurance that her complaint had been properly investigated.
19. The response said the landlord would investigate further and reply by 22 March 2024, but there is no evidence it did. This was unreasonable and a missed chance to resolve the complaint early and avoid escalation.
20. The landlord updated its complaints policy on 1 April 2024. The policy aligned with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It said complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days, stage 1 responses sent within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
21. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 April 2024. When she did not get an acknowledgment she contacted this Service, which will have caused her extra time and trouble. We wrote to the landlord, and it acknowledged the complaint on 3 May 2024, 10 working days after the request. This was not in line with its policy.
22. When the landlord responded at stage 2 it clearly defined the complaint and addressed all the resident’s concerns. This was appropriate and in line with the expectations set out in the Code.
23. The landlord accepted that there had been a delay in acknowledging the complaint, apologised and awarded £20 compensation. It also gave £50 for time and trouble. This was reasonable and showed it had considered its compensation policy, which says it can make discretionary awards when its service failure means a resident spends unnecessary time and effort in trying to get the landlord to put things right.
24. The landlord also awarded £30 compensation for complaint handling at stage 1 but did not explain why. Since the response was sent within policy timescales, the award was likely for the lack of investigation. While it was right to offer compensation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the failing and explain it to the resident.
25. The Ombudsman found the landlord’s actions and compensation were proportionate to the failings and we find they amount to reasonable redress. It showed it had considered the impact on the resident and offered compensation in line with its policy. If the landlord had not acknowledged its failings and taken steps to put things right, there would have been a finding of service failure.