London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202348669)

Decision
Case ID	202348669
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 October 2025

Background

The resident lived in a 2-bedroom flat with her 2 children. She complained that there was a mice infestation and droppings in the property and disrepair was contributing to this. She also complained as she was unhappy with plastering and decorating in the property following leaks. The resident reported to the landlord that she and her children had vulnerabilities. They moved to another property in September 2025.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a mice infestation and related repairs.
2. concerns about plastering and decorating.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation and related repairs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about plastering and decorating.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Mice infestation

The landlord initially responded quickly and arranged pest control treatment. However, it did not complete the recommended proofing of the property as agreed. It did not confirm whether the bathroom or kitchen needed to be replaced to avoid infestation. It failed to consider the reported vulnerabilities and impact on the household. Despite reports of mice droppings in the property it did not consider whether it was fit for human habitation. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the length of time works were outstanding, and the impact on the household.

Plastering and decorating

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports for 4 months. It provided a reasonable response at stage 2 but did not acknowledge its delay in doing so.

Complaint handling

The landlord was late to acknowledge the complaint, and its stage 1 response did not assess its actions. It created an additional stage in its complaints process and did not acknowledge all its complaint handling failures or complete all its agreed actions. It apologised for delays at stage 2, but the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures and their likely impact on 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.

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 24 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,010 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports that there was a mice infestation. £50 for the distress and in and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its plastering and decorating. £160 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 24 November 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 24 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 July 2021	The landlord completed pest control works as the resident reported mice.
15 November 2022	The landlord filled and painted the ceiling following a leak in the kitchen.
6 January 2023	The landlord completed plastering in the bathroom following a leak.
26 March 2024	The resident reported a mice infestation in the property. She said there were holes allowing them access, which she thought had caused the infestation. The landlord raised pest control works. The resident raised a complaint. She said: there had been a mice infestation since 2021 and other properties in the block were also affected. she had tried using poison. She said the landlord had not proofed the property. disrepair was contributing to mice accessing every room. She said the kitchen and bathroom needed to be replaced or repaired. there were mice droppings throughout the property including the dining room table and beds. She attached photos of this. her children had vulnerabilities, were scared of sleeping in their bedroom and were unaware of eating from a table with droppings. her mental health was deteriorating. the property was not fit for human habitation. she was unhappy with the plastering and decorating following leaks in the kitchen and bathroom.
5 April 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 acknowledgement and response. It said it had raised pest control works. It apologised for the inconvenience and upheld the complaint. It said it would assess whether to offer compensation in future.
7 April 2024	The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and: it had not resolved the proofing and repairs required. in addition to laying bait, she wanted it to seal the access points and replace the kitchen and bathroom to stop the infestation.
10 April 2024 – 1 May 2024	Pest control contractors attended the property 3 times. On 10 and 17 April 2024 they confirmed there was a moderate level infestation and laid bait in the property. They confirmed mouse droppings were present and recommended proofing holes in the kitchen and bathroom. On 1 May 2024, the resident confirmed no recent sightings of mice. The contractors confirmed no bait had been taken and removed it. They confirmed droppings were present and there was a low-level infestation.
15 May 2024	The landlord inspected the property. It confirmed the kitchen components needed urgent updating due to their condition and said this was causing a mice infestation.
17 May 2024	The landlord raised works to proof holes in the bathroom and kitchen.
31 May 2024	The landlord issued an updated stage 1 response and said: its contractors would contact the resident that day to arrange an appointment to proof the holes in the property urgently. it apologised for a delay in repairs and offered £180 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and effort.
9 July 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response and said: it apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response and offered £60 compensation for this. the reason it did not complete proofing until there were no mice in the property was to avoid trapping them in the property. the infestation was a block issue, and each property had to be proofed individually. contractors would arrange an appointment to proof the property. a kitchen replacement was on a planned works programme. It could not confirm when this would be completed. the resident could update her household’s vulnerabilities online. it could not compensate for the impact of pests. It offered £80 compensation for the inconvenience caused. it was only responsible for repairing the patch of plaster affected. It said the resident could call its contact centre if she was unhappy with its plastering. It said she was responsible for redecorating.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy as the landlord had not completed the proofing works as agreed or confirmed when it would. She said the infestation was ongoing and impacting her children’s health. The resident has recently moved but would like increased compensation and the landlord to learn from any failures.

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	Reports of a mice infestation and related repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord completed pest control works in July 2021. There is no evidence that the resident reported mice to the landlord again until 26 March 2024. Although she said there had been a mice infestation since 2021, our investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 26 March 2024. We may refer to events before this for context.
The resident said hers and her children’s health were impacted. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim in relation to this, as the courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute. However, we can consider compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by any failures by the landlord.
The landlord’s pest policy said residents are expected to try to deal with mice infestations if appropriate. Its repairs policy said it was responsible for mice infestations if a resident has been unable to deal with it. Its pests policy said it is responsible for mice infestations if they are affecting multiple flats, affecting a home due to disrepair (excluding little holes), or if the resident is vulnerable.
Given that the resident said she had tried to deal with the infestation, it was affecting multiple properties, and the landlord did not suggest it was her responsibility, it was reasonable for the landlord to take responsibility for it and raise pest works on 26 March 2024.
Despite the resident reporting mouse droppings and suggesting the property was not fit for human habitation, the landlord did not consider completing a risk assessment in light of the vulnerabilities and reported impact of the infestation. It did not show due regard to its duties under Section 9.A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property was fit for human habitation.
When contractors recommended proofing works to holes in the property, it would have been in line with the landlord’s pests policy for it to block any identified access holes. On 20 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord whether it had received the pest control contractors’ reports and what action it planned to take. She requested an update on 1 May 2024. She said she thought the mice were a potential Environmental Health issue and asked if it was going to complete the recommended proofing. The landlord did not provide timely updates.
On 9 May 2024 the resident reported that she was in crisis and was struggling to communicate with the landlord due to her mental health. She said the mouse infestation was aggravating her child’s allergies. The landlord did not respond to her concerns about the household’s health or address that the resident reported the infestation to be ongoing.
Following its inspection on 15 May 2024, the landlord internally confirmed the kitchen or its components needed to be replaced but did not assess whether this was required to prevent infestations or whether interim repairs would be sufficient.
That the landlord raised works to proof holes in the bathroom and kitchen was in line with its pests policy. It was helpful for it to provide an update on the completed and planned works in its updated stage 1 response. However, it did not arrange and complete these works as agreed, or within the target date of 17 June 2024, despite noting that they were urgent.
In its stage 2 response:
1. the landlord did not assess its response to the pest infestation in relation to the household’s reported vulnerabilities. Although it discussed a medical transfer application which was approved in July 2024, this was in relation to the household’s health conditions and it has not provided any evidence it considered the risk or impact of the infestation.
2. it was unreasonable for the landlord not to provide a timescale for the planned kitchen replacement works without assessing whether this was required to avoid infestation. It also failed to comment on the bathroom or whether this needed replacing to prevent mice.
3. it did not apologise for the delay in completing proofing works, despite agreeing to arrange this urgently in its updated stage 1 response.
4. it may have been misleading for the landlord to say it could not compensate for the impact of pests. This is because its compensation policy confirms compensation can be paid in recognition of the impact of service failure on a customer and that it may consider when vulnerabilities have caused a greater impact.
The landlord’s records mark the proofing works as ‘completed’ with ‘no action taken’ on 21 January 2025. It spoke to the resident on this day and noted that the holes were too big to proof and that it would request a carpenter to attend. It took no further action.
The resident said she lost trust in the landlord and felt let down. She said that the infestation continued, and mice and droppings were in every room of the property. She said she was concerned about her children, and the issues impacted her sleep. She said she felt the landlord ignored her household’s vulnerabilities and her reports that the infestation was impacting hers and her children’s health.
The landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the failures identified and the impact caused to the resident and her children. We have made orders to put things right in line with our Remedies Guidance and Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint	Dissatisfaction with plastering and decorating.
Finding	Service failure

Our investigation had focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports since 24 March 2024. This is because there is no evidence the resident reported dissatisfaction with the landlord’s painting and decorating in 2022 and 2023 before this date. We may refer to events before March 2024 for context.
As part of her complaint on 26 March 2024, the resident said the landlord had not completed plastering correctly or redecorated the kitchen following a leak. She said it had not redecorated the bathroom correctly after a leak and there was a stain. The landlord did not respond to this until its stage 2 response, which was an unreasonable delay. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this failure in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was in line with its repairs policy which said it would make good surfaces ready to redecorate but would generally not redecorate. Given that the first time the resident had raised concerns about the plastering and decorating was in her complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost her to its contact centre if she was unhappy with the plastering.
The landlord did not acknowledge its delayed response or the impact. We have therefore made an order of compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance and Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

On 4 April 2024 the resident asked why her complaint could not be dealt with in a group with other residents in her block that had complained about the same issue. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain its position on this.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint 7 working days after she raised it. It did not acknowledge the complaint within its complaints policy timescale of 5 working but did issue a response within its complaints policy timescales. In upholding the complaint, it did not assess whether there had been any failure of service.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 7 April 2025. On 20 April 2024, she told it she was unclear if it had accepted her stage 2 complaint. She requested an update on 1 May 2024. The landlord did not provide an update, which was a communication failure.
The landlord issued an updated stage 1 response 37 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. It is positive that it reconsidered whether to offer redress. However, considering the timing of the landlord’s complaint responses, it effectively implemented a further stage in its complaint handling. This was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code and the lack of clear escalation routes in this response may have caused confusion for the resident. On 4 June 2024 the resident confirmed she was still unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of a mice infestation.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and on 20 June 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 21 June 2024 and issued a stage 2 response 52 working days after she initially expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay. It is also unreasonable that the resident had to involve the Ombudsman.
The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at stage 1. At stage 2 it apologised that the resident had to involve the Ombudsman, explained the reason for its stage 2 delays and offered some redress. Its offer of redress was not proportionate to the failures and their impact. We have therefore made an order of compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance and Dispute Resolution Principles.

Learning

The landlord did not set out any learning at either stage of the complaint.

Communication

The landlord failed to provide the resident with regular updates about the substantive issues or her complaint. This was despite her informing the landlord that she struggled to communicate with it due to her mental health. Its complaint handling was likely to be confusing for the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to set out any learning from this complaint.