London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202537150)

Decision
Case ID	202537150
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her 2 children. She said they have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and anxiety, which the landlord is aware of. She complained to the landlord about mice in her property since December 2022.She said they were getting in through the kitchen because it was beyond repair and neededreplacing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A mice infestation and kitchen replacement.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a mice infestation and kitchen replacement.
   2. Maladministration 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 a mice infestation and kitchen replacement

4. The landlord did not follow its policies when responding to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation. The repairs to the resident’s property were either delayed or ineffective, and the landlord did not act promptly on its contractors’ advice. It did not properly assess risks, including the health and wellbeing impact on the resident and her children. Although the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen and offered compensation, it did not resolve the problem or fully recognise its failures.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as it failed to formally respond the resident’s first complaint in December 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge its previous failure in its second complaint responses and therefore missed an opportunity to put things right.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 made up as follows: £400 the landlord offered the resident in its final complaint response £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a mice infestation and kitchen replacement £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling   It must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of this to us by the due date. It may deduct any amount it has already paid to the resident.	No later than 11 May 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must arrange an inspection of the resident’s property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. It must use a suitably qualified person to complete the inspection.   If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property by the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure the surveyor: Inspects the resident’s reports of a mice infestation at the property. Produces a written report with photographs and provides a copy of this to us and the resident. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. 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 estimated timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 11 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers prioritising the resident’s kitchen replacement works. It should manage the resident’s expectations about when it will start the works.
We recommend the landlord follows its contractors’ suggestions by surveying and treating neighbouring properties for mice activity if it has not done so already.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2024	The resident first complained to the landlord about mice infesting her property due to repairs in her kitchen.
13 October 2025	The resident complained to the landlord again about an ongoing mice infestation. She said the landlord placed her on a list to renew her kitchen in December 2024, but she had not heard anything since.
20 October 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
22 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the distress the issue was causing her. It confirmed the actions it was taking to address the pest control problem.  The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
23 October 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint.
12 November 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised and offered her £400 compensation. It confirmed it would replace her kitchen but could not say when this would be.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said mice are still active in her property. She wants the landlord to do urgent proofing works and to prioritise her kitchen replacement. She also wants more compensation for the distress and inconvenience she said the issues caused her.

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 a mice infestation and kitchen replacement
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told us the issues affected hers and her family’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. We have not investigated this as it is better for the courts to resolve this type of dispute. The courts will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

7. We normally only investigate events that happen within 12 months of a resident’s complaint, but we may extend this timeframe under our scheme rules. In this case we have extended our investigation to include the landlord’s handling of pest control since December 2022. This is because the landlord has considered this period within its complaint response. The resident told us the issues continued beyond the landlord’s final complaint response in November 2025, so we have also considered the landlord’s handling of the issues to date.
8. The resident reported mice in her kitchen in December 2022. The landlord inspected her property. It agreed to repair the flooring under her kitchen units to prevent mice entering, commonly known as ‘proofing’ works. However, the landlord did not complete the repair until October 2023. This significantly exceeded its 20-calendar day target set out in its repairs policy and it failed to communicate the reasons why during the delay.
9. The resident told the landlord she had mice in her property again on 3 Januaryand 12 February 2024. The landlord arranged forpest control contractors to attend her property within its policy timescaleon both occasions. However, it did notreturn to do proofing works in the resident’s kitchen until 27 March 2024. This meant it did not meet its policy target of 20-calendar days,and it did not explain the reason for the delay to the resident.
10. The proofing works the landlord did were ineffective, as the resident reported mice again throughout her whole property between April and August 2024. The landlord took too long to respond to both the pest control and proofing works on these occasions. It completed repairs on 27 September 2024, but this failed to fully resolve the problem.
11. We have guidance on pest control for landlords to follow on our website. This says landlords should do timely inspections and repairs. Although it can sometimes take multiple attempts to resolve issues, landlords must keep residents updated and be clear with communication and timescales to manage expectations. They should consider the root cause of the pest issue and seek input from surveyors.
12. The resident complained to the landlord in December 2024. She said she still had a mice problem, and her kitchen units were collapsing due to being removed for proofing works.  The landlord’s pest control contractors recommended that it replaced the kitchen “to ensure maximum proofing against rodents.” The landlord promptly inspected the resident’s property following this recommendation. It agreed to renew the resident’s kitchen under its planned works programme.
13. The landlord’s planned works procedure says it inspects components to assess if they are beyond economical repair. The landlord initially followed its policy by inspecting the kitchen and agreeing to replace it. It completed remedial works by proofing around the stack pipe. However, it did not do a risk assessment, consider the household’s vulnerabilities, and the potential health and safety issues mice can cause. It did not consider how quickly it would need to renew the kitchen based on these factors.
14. The resident reported mice again in the 4 months leading up to her second complaint to the landlord in October 2025.The landlord arranged for pest control contractors to attend the resident’s propertyagain. During their visit on 11 June 2025 they recommended the landlord sealed gaps under the kitchen unit and other pipework. In their second visit on 16 July 2025 they said “it would be easier in the long run if the kitchen is emptied and every potential ingress hole is filled”.
15. The landlord did not follow the pest control contractors’ recommendations by considering bringing renewal works forward or promptly starting the proofing works. It also did not explain any reason for the delay. The landlord arranged for pest control contractors to attend again between October and November 2025. However, it did not fully complete the proofing works until 1 December 2025. As this was over 5 months after pest control contractors recommended the repairs, it significantly exceeded its policy target of 20-working days.
16. The landlord is aware the resident’s children have neurodevelopmental conditions. The resident told the landlord the issue was having a significant impact on hers and her family’s health and wellbeing. She said her children had found mice droppings on their beds and she was concerned for their health and safety. The landlord acknowledged it failed to consider the household’s vulnerabilities in its final complaint response. It was reasonable that it offered £400 compensation to recognise this, and the resident’s time and trouble raising her complaint.
17. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles which are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord attempted to put things right in its final complaint response by apologising, scheduling pest control and proofing repairs, and offering compensation. However, its overall compensation offer was not proportionate to our findings in this case.
18. We found maladministration as the landlord failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failings in its complaint response. It also did not fully resolve the issue, as the resident reported mice in her property again in January 2026. We ordered the landlord to inspect the resident’s property again to assess if it needs to offer more pest control and proofing repairs. As its previous attempts to resolve the mice infestation have been unsuccessful over a prolonged period, we recommend the landlord considers prioritising the kitchen renewal works.
19. Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified failings by the landlord. Weordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £400 compensationfor the overalldistress and inconvenience the issues caused her. The overall compensationamount of £800 follows our remedies guidance where there were failings which had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

20. The landlord’s policy outlines its definition of a complaint and its timescales for responding. It says it will record and acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. The landlord’s complaint definition and response timescales contained within its policy are in line with the Code.
21. The resident complained to the landlord previously. The landlord recorded this complaint in its repair records and inspected her property on 18 December 2024. However, the landlord did not follow itspolicy or our Code as it failed to respond to the resident’sinitial complaint.
22. When the resident complained again in October 2025, she told the landlord she had previously complained about her mice problem. However, the landlord failed to recognise it had not responded to her previous complaint in line with its policies. This meant it missed an opportunity to remedy its previous complaint handling failure and put things right for the resident.
23. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to record and respond to the resident’s initial complaint, which potentially delayed her resolution to the issue. It did not acknowledge or remedy this failure when it responded to her second complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused. This amount is in line with our compensation and remedies guidance where there have been complaint handling failures.

Learning

24. The landlord should review its planned works procedure and consider introducing clearer timescales about when it will start works once it has agreed to replace items such as kitchens. It may want to use the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Time-bound) approach when planning renewal works. It should ensure it communicates with residents and manages their expectations about when it will start and finish planned works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’srecords of its communications with the resident were limited. The landlord should improve its record keeping which will enable it to monitor recurring issues and provide a more efficient service.
26. It should follow our guidance on pest control which says, “landlords should keep effective records to not repeat the same actions that are not working”.

Communication

27. The landlord should improve its communication with residents. Particularly in cases such as this one, where there are health and safety issues which could impact on residents’ health and wellbeing. It would benefit from contacting residents after it has done proofing works to establish if the repairs have been effective at fully resolving the pest problem.