London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202511313)

Background

1. The resident lives with her child in the ground floor flat of a converted 1-story house. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. In her formal complaint, the resident said there was an ongoing mouse infestation within her flat which the landlord had persistently failed to resolve. The resident said she wanted the landlord to address this issue. She later asked to be re-housed by the landlord after repeated attempts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of an ongoing mice infestation.
   2. The related complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing mice infestation.
   2. Handling of the related complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing mice infestation

4. The landlord’s failure to effectively mouse-proof the property at earliest opportunity alongside treating the pests, delayed a permanent resolution to the infestation.

     Landlord’s handling of the related complaint

5. There was a lengthy and unreasonable delay in providing its final complaint response despite repeated requests from 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.

Our investigation

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us the mice infestation had reoccurred for the past 15 years. However, the focus of our investigation will be from June 2024 when the resident made a pest report with the landlord. She had not raised a pest report with it for nearly 12 months prior to this. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint made on 23 January 2025.

What we did investigate

7. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had arranged for an operative to attend on 27 January 2025 to inspect holes in the kitchen, which the resident reported were linked to a mice infestation. The landlord said it would then raise repairs and address the pest issue.
8. The landlord’s records confirm it raised a job with its repair team within a day of receiving the resident’s 23 January 2025 report. This was to inspect and fill in any holes found in the kitchen and bathroom. This action was in line with its repair and pest policies which state the landlord is responsible for structural defects and for dealing with pest infestations respectively. This included where there are vulnerabilities, as in this case. Its records show the inspection took place on 27 January 2025 demonstrating the landlord took prompt and appropriate action here.
9. However, it is evident that the resident had reported a mice infestation within her flat on 2 occasions during the previous 7 months. It is clear the landlord treated the infestation following these reports, the last visit being on 2 January 2025.
10. Although its records indicate it previously filled holes in the kitchen, the resident’s report of an ongoing mice infestation on 23 January 2025 shows this action had not effectively resolved the pest problem. As such it was important that following the resident’s latest report, the landlord carry out a thorough inspection to ensure all holes or gaps in the structure were identified and rectified in a timely manner to stop mice re-entering the property.
11. As previously noted, the landlord inspected promptly following the resident’s 23 January 2025 report and also arranged for 3 pest treatments. However, it is not clear from its records, what if any repairs were provided at this time. Proper record keeping is a core element of effective housing management. When repair records are missing or incomplete, it is difficult to establish exactly what works were provided by the landlord. As such the lack of detail of completed repairs is evidence of poor knowledge and information management (KIM) by the landlord.
12. The resident continued to report ongoing mice activity after the pest visits were completed on 28 February 2025. She sent the landlord photos of this activity as per its request and the landlord arranged for further pest treatments on 3, 14, and 28 April 2025. The pest control reports confirm ongoing activity and recommend further investigation into finding new entry holes. This shows any attempt by the landlord to repair holes following her 23 January 2025 report, had been unsuccessful.
13. There is no evidence of the landlord raising a further job in relation to locating new entry holes at this time. Its failure to follow pest control recommendations or monitor the situation, was inappropriate. As the resident’s reports of mice activity were ongoing, the landlord raised a job for an additional 3 pest treatments. This was appropriate; however, the pest report dated 12 May 2025 again confirmed ongoing activity. It recommended the upstairs’ neighbour’s property was examined in case mice were coming from here. Again, there is no evidence of the landlord acting on this recommendation within a reasonable timeframe.
14. The landlord’s repeated failure to follow up on recommendations made by pest control to address the issue, was inappropriate. This was despite regular contact from the resident during this timeframe urging it to act. She made clear throughout the severe impact of the mice infestation on her and her child. This is evidence of the landlord not taking the resident’s reports or related complaint sufficiently seriously.
15. On 19 June 2025 the landlord attended the property itself to inspect for further entry holes. On this occasion, further holes were found and repairs in the kitchen, bathroom and hallway were identified. Following this the landlord arranged to visit again with its pest contractor to ensure the repairs outlined would fully resolve the infestation. In its final response dated 16 July 2025 the landlord confirmed this visit had been scheduled for 18 July 2025. It also told the resident it would monitor the progress of the work which would be undertaken by its surveying team.
16. The action proposed in order to provide a permanent solution to the pest issue was appropriate. However, the landlord should have taken this action at least 6 months earlier following the resident’s 23 January 2025 report. The failure to get structural repairs right at earliest opportunity led to multiple pest control visits which alone, did not adequately address the issue. This shows a lack of oversight by the landlord in managing the issue.
17. As a result of the unresolved mice infestation, on 19 June 2025 the resident requested the landlord to re-house her. The landlord responded more than 2 weeks later on 7 July 2025 and only after 4 follow up requests by the resident (on 23 and 25 June 2025 and twice on 4 July 2025). While we have not seen any evidence to show re-housing was required, the landlord should have been prompt in providing its position. Its response was also dismissive in tone. Its officer told the resident her request was outside of their remit and advised the resident to contact its call centre for further advice.
18. In its final response issued approximately 2 weeks later, the landlord reiterated that the resident’s re-housing request was outside the remit of the complaint. Rehousing matters are not listed as an exception in the landlord’s complaint policy, so the basis of the landlord’s comment here is unclear.
19. In its final response the landlord said that a mutual exchange was often a quicker process for finding a suitable home. However, in the circumstances, the landlord should have outlined all rehousing options and provided signposting or contact details of appropriate officers to enable the resident to pursue these avenues. Although the landlord’s officer later discussed rehousing options with the resident, it should have included this information in its final response.
20. We also expect the landlord to demonstrate it followed through with actions agreed in its final response. Its records show the joint visit took place as agreed. Further that the landlord’s subsequent repairs, including sealing entry points in the gas meter at the front of the property and additional pest treatments, resolved the mice infestation. This is welcomed.
21. Therefore, although the landlord made several attempts to address the resident’s reports, its failure to carry out effective structural repairs alongside pest treatments caused an unreasonable delay in resolving the mice infestation.
22. In its final response the landlord recognised some failings and offered £150 in compensation. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things rights and learn from outcomes. However, given the lengthy delay (of at least 7 months) in completing all necessary structural repairs, the redress offered is not sufficient to resolve the complaint. This amounts to an overall finding of service failure.
23. In the circumstances, the landlord shall pay the resident total compensation of £300 (including the £150 offered during the complaints process) made up of:
    1. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £100 for time and trouble.
24. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where failings have adversely affected the resident. This amount also takes into account the resident’s vulnerabilities in this case.

25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. These timescales are echoed in the landlord’s own complaint policy.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint dated 23 January 2025 within 1 working day and sent its stage 1 response 3 working days later on 27 January 2025. This was within its timescales therefore the landlord acted appropriately.
27. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 April 2025. The landlord failed to acknowledge her request until 59 working days later on 11 July 2025. This was only after 3 further escalation requests and a further complaint made by the resident. This was outside of its 5 working day deadline and was inappropriate. The landlord provided its final complaint response 5 working days later on 16 July 2025.
28. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged poor complaint handling and offered £40 in recognition of this. This went some way to putting right this failing. However, given the prolonged delay in providing its final response and the resident’s repeated follow-up requests, the redress offered was insufficient to resolve the complaint. This amounts to an overall finding of service failure.

Learning

29. We identified an issue with the landlord’s repair records where jobs raised did not include any comments or details of the repairs or works subsequently provided.
30. We also identified instances of the landlord not communicating delays or providing updates to the resident when requested.
31. The landlord should consider what lessons it can learn from this case and how it will improve its record keeping and communication while handling repairs in relation to pest reports going forward.