London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202447122)

Decision
Case ID	202447122
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives with her daughter in a ground floor flat. She reported a pest infestation in her property that damaged her furniture and personal belongings. She complained that the landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

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

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

Summary of reasons

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

5. The landlord did not act on its contractor’s recommendation to seal airbricks. It did not ask the resident to help identify causes of the infestation in line with its pests policy. Records indicated it completed a job outside its required timescales, but the completion date and action taken was unclear. It also failed to update the resident with information from its contractor as promised and provided incorrect information in its stage 2 response. The landlord has not provided any evidence of it contacting the resident on 4 November 2024 as its records suggested or a copy of the contractor’s report it sent to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process.

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 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. £100 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.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must: take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the resident’s property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the pest infestation and how pests are entering the resident’s property whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue, together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 September 2024	The resident complained that she reported a pest infestation over 6 months ago. She said contractors had attended over 10 times but all they did was set traps and the infestation had spread throughout the property causing significant stress, health concerns and household disruption. She requested a thorough inspection and an effective solution, such as sealing entry points and fumigation. She asked the landlord to consider compensation for inconvenience, stress and damage to property.
3 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and provided its response. It apologised for any trouble caused. It said it had contacted its contractor regarding the 2 open jobs, asked it to prioritise them and provide its report. It said the resident would need to approach its insurance team regarding claims for her damaged belongings.
8 September 2024	The resident requested that the landlord provided a copy of the contractor’s report to her. However, she said a report alone would not suffice and the landlord needed to book pest control urgently to resolve the issue. She said this was a health and safety issue, her family were having sleepless nights and could not cook safely due to this.
4 November 2024	The resident said the contractor completed proofing works on 21 October 2024 but only in the kitchen. She said the bottom cupboards in the kitchen needed to be sealed and a potent smell in the cupboard that had been sealed made it unusable. She said the contractor did not complete any work in the living room or back yard, where mouse droppings were present. She requested another appointment to resolve the issues, not just a consultation.
18 November 2024	The resident said she had not heard from the landlord, and it had not escalated her complaint. She said she could not cook in the kitchen due to the smell which was entering the living room. She said the landlord had displayed a lack of urgency and should find a solution.   The landlord said it was waiting to hear back from management.
19 November 2024	The resident said she wanted to escalate her complaint.
21 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It outlined her concerns and said it would contact its contractor and then update her.
28 November 2024	The resident said she had received the contractor’s report. She said it was false as they had not completed the job as stated.
6 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it had completed treatment work on 17 September and further proofing on 21 October 2024. It said it had raised a further job for the smell the resident reported, and its contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment. It said the resident would have to claim for damage to personal belongings through her home contents insurance or directly through its legal team.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as the landlord had not resolved the pest infestation in her property. She wanted the landlord to complete other treatment and not just set traps. She also wanted the landlord to compensate her for damage to her personal belongings and inconvenience and stress caused.

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
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. The resident said the issues had impacted her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any negative impact. 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 issue and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.  
8. The resident requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. While we can consider the impact the issues reported have had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability in the same was as a court or insurer may. The resident may wish to pursue an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurance team should she feel that the landlord is liable for the damage to her belongings.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 2 June 2023. The report produced following this said the resident was reporting mice in the walls, she had proofed under the kitchen units, and it did not look like there were any access points for the mice. It also said the airbricks around the property needed to be sealed. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it sealed the airbricks.
10. The contractor attended 5 times between 9 June and 30 November 2023. Reports showed the contractor laid bait, which remained untouched, and noted a low infestation. The landlord’s pests policy says that identifying the cause of an infestation could be difficult and it should encourage residents to help identify likely causes to try and resolve the issue. There is no evidence the contractor discussed this with the resident. The policy also advises that in some situations tackling the problem may be more cost effective than repeated works orders to contractors. There is no evidence the landlord considered this.
11. The contractor attended again on 19 April and 1 and 21 May 2024. It laid bait boxes throughout the property but again found no activity. The landlord raised a job to seal holes in the resident’s property on 23 May 2024 as its contractor had advised. It is unclear if this included the airbricks its contractor had mentioned previously. The landlord’s records show it completed this on 26 June 2024. This was beyond the average of 25 calendar days stated in its repairs policy for routine repairs. The landlord opened another job for this on 26 June which it completed on 16 July 2024. However, the landlord’s records do not show the action taken to complete both jobs. The resident told us that the landlord did not seal any holes at this point.
12. The contractor attended the resident’s property twice in July 2024. It laid bait boxes in the kitchen but noted it had not been taken and there were no obvious holes for mice to gain access. The resident complained that the contractor had not acted, other than lay traps on 1 September 2024. She asked the landlord to resolve the issue. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had asked the contractor to prioritise the jobs raised. It also told the resident to contact its insurance team regarding her damaged belongings. This was in line with its compensation policy and insurance claim procedures.
13. The landlord asked its contractor to action the jobs raised on 3 September 2024. It also requested an update from it on 9 September 2024. However, there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident as it had promised. Additionally, the resident refused access to the contractor on 17 September 2024 as she did not want 3 further baiting visits. Given this was central to the resident’s complaint, the landlord could have discussed this with her or liaised with its contractor to consider additional action to resolve the issue in line with its pests policy.
14. The contractor completed some proofing works on 21 October 2024. On 4 November 2024 the resident said further work was required due to a smell where the contractor had sealed and it not completing work in other parts of the property. The landlord’s records indicated that it contacted the resident. However, it has not provided a record of this. The resident reiterated her concerns on 18 November 2024. On 28 November 2024 she said she received the report and disputed that the contractor completed the work as stated. The landlord has not provided a copy of this report. This is a record keeping failure.
15. In its stage 2 response the landlord incorrectly told the resident that it had completed treatment on 17 September 2024 when the resident had refused work. In line with its compensation policy, it said she would have to claim through her home contents insurance for damaged belongings. However, it also said she could submit a claim to its legal team. It said it raised another job for the smell. The resident refused treatment on 10 December 2024 as she had sealed up the gaps herself and there had been no activity since. She said that she wanted the proofing done properly and not just traps laid as before.
16. The resident has since said that the infestation has returned and is now worse. She said the landlord had paid £100 for damaged flooring but nothing else. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the pest infestation or offer any compensation for this in its complaint responses. Therefore, it did not try to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
17. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation had a significant impact on her. Almost 2 and a half years later it is unclear if the landlord has sealed the airbricks as set out in the report in June 2023. The resident said the infestation had caused embarrassment and she could not invite guests to her home. She also said the noise from the pests had impacted her and her daughter’s sleep which in turn had impacted their daily lives and work. Therefore, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise, pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance and inspect the property.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process which is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and provided its stage 1 response on 3 September 2024 in line with the timescales in its complaint policy.
19. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues on 8 September 2024. She reported unresolved issues on 4 November 2024. The landlord did not escalate her complaint. Its complaint policy states that it will treat any expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 November 2024, stating it had not contacted her or escalated her complaint. The landlord responded but did not escalate. The resident told the landlord to escalate the complaint on 19 November 2024.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 21 November 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 6 December 2024 meeting the 20-working day timeframe in its complaint policy from the date of acknowledgement. However, it did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures in this response. There was a delay of around 3 months from when the resident first expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord providing its stage 2 response. This may have caused her time and trouble in receiving a response to her concerns and delayed her in exhausting the landlord’s complaint process.
21. Our remedies guidance allows for payments of £50 to £100 where there had been a minor failure by the landlord and it had not appropriately acknowledged this or put things right. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not maintain adequate repair records. This included when it completed some work and the actions taken and a copy of the report it sent to the resident. At times this made it difficult to assess its actions. 

Communication

23. The landlord failed to contact the resident after receiving an update from its contractors as promised. It demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors, which may have contributed to the failings identified.