Longhurst Group Limited (202116910)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116910

Longhurst Group Limited

31 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft and walls.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in 2009. The property is a house in a terrace with two other properties owned by the landlord.
3. The resident lives in the property with her teenage child and says that both she and her teenage child have vermin phobias. She says that she has had a physical disability since August 2022, which is understood to relate to a spine injury for which she has had surgery.
4. The landlord’s repairs policy says that internal rat infestations are the responsibility of the landlord and will treated as an emergency repair, while mice infestations are tenant responsibility.
5. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including protection from infection.
6. The HHSRS says that poor design/layout/construction of a dwelling means that it is difficult to be kept clean and hygienic and can allow access for pests including rats. This can result in, among other things, gastro-intestinal disease (from spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties in keeping the home clean), infections (spread by rats and mice) and nuisance. Preventative measures include reducing the means of access by pests to a minimum; blocking holes through the roof, eaves and verges to deny ingress to rats/mice/squirrels/birds; and covering of any necessary holes to be covered by grilles.
7. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure, where it aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
8. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will pay for temporary increased electrical costs and refers to temporary heaters and dehumidifiers. The procedures also say it will pay compensation for actual financial loss.

Summary of events

9. The resident says that she has experienced issues with pests entering her loft since 2009. The resident has CCTV in the loft and in correspondence she has supplied video of mice, rats and squirrels to the landlord and this Service, mainly undated. There is limited information to suggest pests have ever entered the living areas, but the resident has raised concern about this happening.
10. In 2018, there was a squirrel infestation and pest contractors attended. The resident has said the landlord failed to follow their recommendations and suggested for their report to be obtained. The Ombudsman determined a previous complaint in June 2019 where it was noted that the pest contractor did not produce a report. In July 2019, the landlord post-inspected, having carried out works to squirrel proof and replace loft insulation, and noted that no further action was required at that time.
11. In November 2020, 16 months later, the resident contacted the landlord about her loft being entered by rats and squirrels, and supplied reports from a pest contractor her insurer had arranged. An October 2020 report said that 1 or 2 rats were gaining access; there was a hole in the corner of the loft through which rats living next door were entering; and vegetation encroaching on nearby houses provided access into their lofts. A November 2020 report identified no sign of activity since a previous visit; the hole in the loft that allowed access from next door was filled with wire wool and expanding foam; no other entry points were observed; and roofers were recommended to permanently fix the hole and check for other external holes. The resident asked the landlord to follow the recommendation for a roofer to fix the hole and check for other holes.
12. The landlord subsequently noted that there seemed to be limited activity, and it asked the resident to liaise with its own pest contractor to inspect and complete “permanent pest proofing.” The resident says the contractor confirmed they did not do ‘permanent’ proofing, and it is not evident that she arranged an appointment with them to attend the property. The resident was later contacted by a repairs surveyor and asked to contact them to discuss an inspection for proofing the loft, but it is not evident this progressed.
13. In July 2021, 6 months later, the resident reported that proofing her contractor had done to separate her loft from her neighbour’s had now been compromised. She said that mice, rats and squirrels had been repeatedly experienced in the loft and a long-term fix was needed. She noted that her contractor had recommended permanent proofing, and that she had been referred to a contractor who said they did not do this.
14. The landlord acknowledged the report the following month, after chasing from the resident, and then in September 2021 it attended with pest contractor A. It was noted that the inspection showed little activity, but the resident provided video of squirrels in the loft. It was noted that traps were laid and they would return to the property later in the month. The landlord asked pest contractor A to arrange for any noticed pest proofing to be completed externally, and to liaise with the local authority to trim some trees, which were viewed as a main cause of the problem. It was noted that access was gained to a neighbouring property and a visit was arranged to lay traps and bait. The resident was revisited later in the month, but access was not gained due to a member of her household having COVID-19.
15. In early October 2021, the resident was informed that no issues were found at a neighbouring property and it was not believed there was a current infestation, but the landlord was to do more permanent proofing and the local authority was attempting to progress works to trim vegetation. Following this the local authority environmental health department, who the resident raised the issue to around this time, said that no action was required from the landlord beyond the action it was already taking.
16. On 4 October 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She was unhappy that it was not believed she currently had an infestation. She was unhappy with its historic handling, said she had experienced pests entering her roof for 12 years, and said she had to contact pest control every 6 months to carry out blocking. She said that the landlord had not confirmed an intended 8 October 2021 visit with her that she had been informed about.
17. The resident cancelled the 8 October 2021 visit and on 7 October 2021 her own pest contractor attended. Their noted that the resident said there had been squirrels, rats and mice in the loft for several years, which had been caught on CCTV, but no activity downstairs. They noted that they placed 8 trays of rodenticide in the loft. They noted that it was obvious that the rat issue was coming from next door, as there were tunnels in the loft insulation which led to the guttering. The resident says they confirmed the presence of 30 droppings and a dead mouse, and says they said rats were likely to be living in the property next door at ground level, although this was not specifically stated in their report.
18. In further contact around this time, the resident forwarded video that she said was recent footage of a rodent in her loft and proof of an infestation. She also said she had previously heard squirrels in the internal walls. She said that rodents were coming in from a neighbour’s eaves due to a neighbour’s overgrown trees, and she said that eaves may need to be stripped back and replaced. She raised concern that the landlord would continue to attempt temporary solutions.
19. In internal discussions, the landlord noted that despite the resident’s repeated requests to block the roof space, rodents could squeeze through the tiniest of gaps, and various pest contractors had said it was not possible to make roofs completely rodent proof. It noted that the local authority agreed the trees were the root cause, as they acted as an access route for squirrels and rats, and needed addressing.
20. On 21 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It noted that there had been scheduled visits from its pest contractor, and the resident had then arranged her own pest control and said she would send a further report after they attended again on 22 October 2021. It said the case had been discussed with the local authority, which said the root cause of the rodent problem were their trees that belonged to them and overhung into the landlord’s properties. It said the local authority had internally requested for these to be cut back, and the landlord would continue to monitor the situation.
21. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord and the local authority. She said eaves and pipework were causes as well as the foliage, and she restated that long-term blocking should be done with ‘robust’ materials, as had been advised by the landlord’s pest contractor in 2018 and her own pest contractor in 2020.
22. The landlord discussed matters with pest contractor A and the local authority and on 4 November 2021, it wrote to the resident. It said it wanted to attend on 12 November 2021 with pest contractor A, and their ‘proofing service technician,’ to establish what was getting into the loft and what areas required permanent sealing. It said that following this, it would arrange for the technician to reattend and carry out identified works. The resident subsequently said that she wanted permanent proofing to be done at the visit on 12 November 2021, and also said that abatement orders should be served on her neighbours to keep their houses clean and cut their trees.
23. On 12 November 2021, the landlord and pest contractor A visited the resident and a neighbouring property. Following this, pest contractor A supplied a report but when doing so, said they were removing themselves from the job due to concerns with the resident’s behaviour. They said there was a rat problem in the loft and recommended a 6 part treatment. They recommended to also do this in a neighbouring property, as although droppings were not observed there, they believed the property had rat issues and believed the resident’s account that neighbours banged on the roof to scare rodents away. They recommended to scan drains to check for breaches in the drain system, and recommended to still ensure the local authority’s trees were cut back to address squirrels. They said it was very difficult to find and seal up breaches in lofts, let alone the resident’s.
24. On 14 November 2021, the resident provided a detailed reply to the landlord’s stage one response. She restated previous dissatisfaction and detailed that the issue had taken up a lot of time and affected her sleep and mental health. She said that activity stopped for a period after temporary proofing was done; there was little activity when she had contacted the landlord in July 2021; and rat droppings identified in September 2021 were not heavy and she had not heard much. She said that the recurrence of the issue however meant the proofing was ineffective and reasons for it including vegetation, roof issues, and the hygiene and attitude of her neighbours had not been addressed. She said she had wanted permanent proofing before the summer ended but had experienced difficulty chasing the landlord for this. She raised concern that the loft would now be full of rat droppings and urine and would require sanitisation and new insulation. She said that she felt that a managed transfer, along with £7,000 to cover moving to a new home, would be the best way forward if the problem could not be resolved. In further contact, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that things had not moved forward and no proofing had been done at the 12 November 2021 visit.
25. The landlord had internal discussions which noted the resident’s concerns, and it asked its contractor to take a number of actions which included to arrange a CCTV drain survey; engage the pest contractor that the resident had been happy with in 2018; and request a copy of their historic report.
26. On 26 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for the delays and said:
    1. pest contractor A had decided they did not want to do the work, so it had secured the services of a new pest contractor, B, which had proofed in 2018.
    2. an appointment had been booked for 1 December 2021, where pest contractor B would treat the loft space for rats, and an operative would permanently seal any access points pest contractor B considered necessary. It had asked pest contractor B to report if works needed to be done by a roofing contractor.
    3. it had scanned the drains to ensure there was nothing that would attract or allow vermin to enter properties, for which the report was expected the next week.
    4. it had inspected 2 neighbouring properties and found nothing in loft spaces, kitchen areas or gardens that may attract vermin into the area.
    5. it had raised a repair to cut back trees adjacent to another property, and had been told that trees that were the local authority’s responsibility were in hand.
27. Following this, the resident restated that her neighbour’s loft and eaves and the wall between the properties required investigation. She expressed concern that pest contractor A had informed her they had wanted to erect scaffold to carry out proofing and the landlord would not allow this. She queried if the landlord had received pest contractor A’s report after the 12 November 2021 visit.
28. On 1 December 2021, pest contractor B did not obtain access, including when they reattended the same day after liaising with the resident. Pest contractor B offered to rebook the appointment, but the resident informed the landlord that they were unable to work around her availability, and she suggested that it would be best for the landlord to follow her own pest contractor’s recommendations.
29. On 2 December 2021, the landlord received the report for the CCTV drain survey. The report included a photo of material in a drain that was a ‘possible’ vermin nest. It was subsequently requested for a job to be raised for the drain contractor and pest contractor B to visit to flush the drains; install one-way traps to ensure rats were not gaining access through the drains; and identify internal entry points. It was noted that a repairs operative would also attend to seal internal entry points on the pest contractor’s instruction.
30. In correspondence, the resident expressed concerns, including about slow progress; the eaves; walls which she said rodents frequented; the lack of provision of pest contractor A’s 12 November 2021 report; and the refusal of their request for scaffold. She also said that her loft insulation needed removal and the loft deep cleaned and sanitised.
31. The landlord subsequently confirmed that it, the drain contractor, pest contractor B and a repairs contractor would visit on 17 December 2021. It explained that it intended to treat the rats in the loft and identify any areas within the loft and roof that were allowing them access. It said that once its pest contractor had identified any areas, its repairs contractor would seal them on their instruction. It said that while this was happening, the drain contractor would jet the main drains to clear debris and fit one-way valves. It informed the resident that what she believed to be a rats nest in drains linked to a neighbouring property was not a nest, and the drain had nothing to do with the neighbouring property.
32. On 17 December 2021, the landlord issued its final response. It restated that pest contractor B would treat rats in the loft space; a drainage contractor would jet the drains and fit one-way valves; and a repairs contractor would attend with their ‘working at height’ team to repair access points and prevent rats entering the property. It said these works would occur that day. It said that once the infestation had been addressed, it would fully clean the loft and install new loft insulation. It apologised that the resident had to progress her complaint to get the work completed, and it said it would prioritise and monitor the works until they were completed. It noted that the resident said rats were coming from next door, and it said it had asked if the “working at height” team could inspect neighbouring roofs and repair access points in neighbouring properties. It said it had also asked if one-way valves could be fitted to neighbouring drains.
33. The same day, the information provided advises that the drain contractor jetted drains and fitted one-way valves, and pest contractor B investigated; filled a hole and across eaves with wire wool; baited several areas; and removed some urine soaked insulation. The resident subsequently raised dissatisfaction that the visit was not in line with the action plan that the landlord had detailed, and restated that permanent proofing needed to be done; the roof needed checking; and the party wall needed to be inspected, with a camera.
34. In January 2022, the resident restated as well as expressed new dissatisfaction in various correspondence. At the visit on 17 December 2021, there had been no attendance by a ‘working from heights’ team, and the landlord’s repairs contractor had not been coordinated to do long-term proofing. There was activity in her loft and she heard noises in the party walls. Pest contractor B’s report had not been provided but they were meant to visit weekly and had said next door’s eaves needed to be investigated. Her water company’s contractor had recommended proofing of all the downspouts at the block, and for the plastic one-way valves that had been fitted to be replaced by metal ones. She raised concern the loft was now contaminated, and asked the landlord to meet its commitment to sanitise it and install new insulation as soon as possible. In separate correspondence to the landlord, the local authority noted that the issue was progressing but raised concern about the resident having to chase for updates.
35. The same month, a mould specialist carried out an inspection. The landlord informed the resident that a structural engineer would visit for other issues at the property, and would be asked for advice on how to best stop rodent access. It noted that the mould specialist said they could sanitise the loft, block off access areas and set traps to eliminate the issue. It said that once recommendations from the structural engineer were received, it would produce a plan of works. The structural report subsequently recommended a survey of the roof and guttering at the resident’s property as well as two adjacent properties.
36. In February 2022, the resident and the local authority expressed concern about progress. The local authority noted the health risks arising from pest infestations, as well as the psychological harm living with them, and said that if the issue remained unresolved they would have to consider enforcement action. The local authority noted that the resident had a single point of contact, but a lack of response had led to a breakdown in trust and the resident feeling unsupported with the issue she had been suffering with for a number of years.
37. The same month, the landlord updated the resident:
    1. It said its structural engineer’s report had raised no serious issues but recommended some further investigation. It was arranging a full roofing and guttering survey of the whole terrace. It had requested a tree survey along with a reduction of trees and vegetation around the three properties. It was arranging further inspections of pipework and drainage.
    2. It said that the plan was to cut back and manage the trees and vegetation correctly to stop rodents getting onto the property; to complete works recommended by the roof and guttering survey to block any access points into the entire block, not just the resident’s property; and to sanitise and reinsulate the loft once the rodent problem had been eradicated.
    3. It said that a machine (a Hydroxyl Generator for removing virus, bacteria, mould and odours) that the mould specialist had placed in the loft would keep it sanitised and safe in the short term, and said the mould specialist had been asked to inspect the traps; remove the loft insulation; sanitise the loft; and fill any ingress points that removing the insulation identified. It said it planned to replace the loft insulation once remedial actions from the roof and gutter surveys were completed.
38. Later in February 2022, the mould specialist carried out proofing and removed loft insulation. They noted that none of the traps deployed had any pests and they only found 3 dead mice and mouse droppings when removing the insulation. They noted that they checked a party wall area and found no access points there or in other areas of the loft. They noted that it had been agreed for the resident to be reimbursed the cost of running the Hydroxyl Generator, which was estimated to be £43.77 based on estimated electricity usage and cost when running for 19 days. The resident’s account says that after the mould specialist filled some holes with a concrete putty type material and removed loft insulation, there was less pest activity in the loft, and pest activity redirected to the cavities, party walls and floor under the loft. The resident has raised dissatisfaction that the landlord arranged the mould specialist to carry out pest works, and also that pests were identified to be mice, which contradicted her understanding that rat droppings had been observed.
39. In March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident, after being asked to update the resident by the local authority. It said it had engaged a new pest contractor, C, and asked them to attend all three properties in the block as many times as required, in order to eradicate the problem with whatever process they believed was required. It said it had instructed them to complete a full report of possible ingress points and cavity walls and to do whatever they recommended to resolve the issues, and in further correspondence it said they would also sanitise the loft.
40. The information provided advises that the same month, trees were cut back, and pest contractor C inspected the resident’s property and a neighbouring property. They found mice evidence in both properties and evidence of squirrel activity in the resident’s. They noted that no concerns were raised about wall cavity noises at the neighbouring property. At both properties, they recommended treatments for rats and mice; fitting of a mesh proofing system; and a riddance programme for squirrels in the surrounding area. In an accompanying email, they noted that access would be provided for the remaining neighbouring property from around 12 April 2022. The local authority subsequently confirmed to the resident that they had assessed one property with pest contractor C, and an inspection at another was being finalised.
41. In April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about lack of updates and progress. It is not evident the landlord logged a further complaint. She raised concern that the loft had still not been sanitised and this had stalled other works such as a roof survey, as the roofer had asked her to contact them when the roof had been sanitised. Following this, the landlord confirmed that it had approved pest contractor C’s works, and pest contractor C liaised with her to sanitise the loft. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord and asked it to focus on dealing with her neighbours properties including the walls.
42. In May 2022, the resident’s account says that pest contractor C attended multiple times, and roofers attended.
43. On 12 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had contacted pest contractor C to request a progress update, and that it had obtained a quote for tree and ivy removal work. It said it had received a structural report which had identified no issues, but it would act on recommendations in the report to carry out further investigative surveys and also arrange a borescope survey. In separate correspondence the same day, the landlord noted that pest control works were still ongoing, but it was satisfied that neighbouring properties did not provide environments that encouraged vermin to thrive, and if there were any concerns raised from staff or contractors visiting the properties, these would be acted on accordingly. The resident subsequently raised dissatisfaction that this contradicted findings by the local authority and pest contractor C that a neighbouring property was a problem.
44. On 25 May 2022, the local authority emailed the resident that as far as they were aware, there was signs of rodent activity in neighbouring properties as well. They said that they understood that the issues were being dealt with and that pest contractor C had made at least 1 visit to a neighbouring property. They noted that they were liaising with the landlord to access 1 property. They noted that the landlord was agreeable to following any recommendations that were made to ensure that, to the best of the landlord’s ability, there was no further infestation problems caused by rats, mice or squirrels. They reassured the resident that they, the landlord and pest contractor C were trying to deal with the issue as quickly as possible.
45. The same day, the landlord assured the resident that it had read and understood her concerns. It said that it was trying to speak to pest contractor C about progress at her property and findings at neighbouring properties. It said it also wanted them to carry out a borescope survey in party and external walls. It asked the resident to supply her availability as it felt that a meeting with her, the landlord and the local authority in person would be beneficial, although it is unclear if she agreed to this offer and this progressed. Around this time, the landlord asked contractors to progress a borescope survey, although contractors queried whether this was required.
46. In June 2022, following contact from the resident, the local authority contacted the landlord and requested an update about the tree line reduction, eradication programme and proofing, including of drains. They noted that they had been in contact about dates to get access to one property but had received no reply. They raised concern that works were stalling. The landlord updated the resident that pest contractor C were going to liaise with the local authority and had been asked to assist with a borescope survey and tree line reductions. It said that it was also going to speak to the local authority and following this, it should be able to let the resident know when works are to be completed and provide a plan of inspections over the following months to ensure the problems did not return. It said that it would instruct roofers to carry out works once tree lines were cut back. The resident subsequently said that more needed to be done, such as further inspection by professional surveyors and attention to pipes, guttering and walls of the houses at the block; and she raised concern that mice and rats had established themselves in the walls.
47. In July 2022, the resident was away for a large part, and in August 2022 the landlord updated the resident. It said it was awaiting updates from pest contractor C and its void team about progress, and what proofing and eradication had been done at one of the properties since it had become vacant. The same day, it made internal enquiries about whether for a neighbour property trees had been cut back and an order had been raised to pest contractor C.
48. In September 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about promises not being kept for various works. She also complained to this Service about a lack of response to a complaint she submitted in April 2022. The landlord updated the local authority that pest contractor C were ignoring calls and it could only assume the pests were under control, but it would arrange a surveyor to attend. It said that staff had been asked to arrange for a roof contractor to attend to seal entry points externally and between properties, noting it had been waiting to do this until pests were no longer a problem. It said that a surveyor was to meet with maintenance staff to discuss reducing trees.
49. On 20 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said there had been a lack of progress and the landlord had not carried out actions recommended by her, Environmental Health and pest contractor C. She said an independent surveyor should attend all three properties in the block, and she detailed thirty other actions she believed should be taken. Following this, the local authority’s environmental health department emailed the landlord and pest contractor C to request a plan of action and progress.
50. On 30 September 2022, pest contractor C emailed the resident about attending for a final riddance treatment and equipment removal. They said that the original works only included a pest disinfection and riddance treatment, and asked the landlord to confirm if it wanted them to provide a proposal for proofing.
51. On 6 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. The letter came from complaints staff but it not evident it was a formal complaint response and it lacked escalation details.
    1. It noted she wanted a RICS registered surveyor to inspect her home. It said this had been discussed internally and it was happy for a full inspection by one of its own surveyors. It acknowledged that this was not what she had requested, but it assured her that its surveyor would complete a thorough inspection. It noted that staff were due to attend on 4 October 2022 to complete this, and items they had been asked to look at included exterior holes.
    2. It noted that it had received no response from pest contractor C after recent attempts. It said a new pest contractor, D, had been asked to complete pest control at the neighbouring properties, and to contact the resident about attending her home. It said a cavity wall survey that pest contractor C had been asked to do would also be passed to a different contractor.
    3. It noted that on 22 September 2022, a surveyor had inspected the surrounding trees with a contractor, and it was putting together a plan to reduce their size.
    4. It said that once the tree work was completed, roof and guttering work that was needed would be planned, as the trees needed to be reduced before this was done.
    5. It noted that it had previously fitted plastic non-return valves to the drains to stop vermin access, and the resident had asked for these to be replaced with metal ones. It said it would not do this as this was not needed. It explained that the valves were a standard type of valve and would stop vermin entry.
52. Around this time, the resident raised concern at another contractor potentially being instructed, and asked the landlord to authorise the proofing works. She also said she had spoken to pest contractor C who had confirmed the landlord had had reports and quotes for some time. The resident’s account says that pest contractor C subsequently carried out proofing in her loft in mid-October 2022, which the local authority environmental health department checked the day after.
53. In November 2022, the resident’s account advises that the heights of trees were reduced, and roofers inspected the two neighbouring properties. The resident subsequently noted recent attempts to cut back trees and vegetation but said there was still a long way to go. The same month, the resident reported that she could hear activity in the walls of the house and noted that the wall camera survey had not been done. She also noted that her CCTV only partially covered the loft, and suggested that any individual vermin captured by the camera was part of a larger infestation. Later in November 2022, after contact from the resident, the local authority environmental health department contacted the landlord and asked it to deal with outstanding issues at the property.
54. In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and restated events; expressed dissatisfaction with its handling; and detailed her views about works that needed doing. She said that her CCTV capturing pests from time to time evidenced an infestation remained, as they lived in large numbers and bred fast. She said that she heard heavy vermin activity in the neighbouring property’s party wall. She noted that her loft still lacked insulation and it was cold even with heating on, except in the kitchen and lounge.
55. The same month, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property to assess disrepair specified in a solicitor’s letter, including a mouse and squirrel infestation. The report supplied by the resident noted that what appeared to be rodent faeces was found, but it was unclear if this was from when the loft insulation was removed. It was noted that trees had been cut back in an effort to deter rodent access via eaves. It was noted that there was evidence in a number of areas of steel wire wool and foam to seal gaps, which was a commonly used method to prevent rodent access. However, it was noted that sections of the party wall remained untreated, which reduced the effectiveness of the procedure. The landlord subsequently informed the resident that it would like to undertake some further proofing works that the loft inspection had identified would be beneficial, and asked if she was prepared to allow access.
56. Following this, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about a number of aspects. The landlord had not met commitments in its 6 October 2022 letter and no one had attended to carry out works from October 2022 to date. The landlord had commissioned pest contractor D as it was not getting responses from pest contractor C, but pest contractor C had informed her that the landlord had not authorised their works. The party wall on her neighbour’s side needed blocking. Squirrel, rat and mouse appropriate proofing needed to be done. She had no insulation after being informed this would be done in Autumn.
57. In January 2023, the resident says the landlord’s contractor attended with the local authority environmental health to carry out baiting in a neighbour’s property. She also says the landlord suggested for a pest contractor to attend that had been the subject of a previous complaint, which she was very distressed by.
58. In February 2023, the resident says plastic one way valves in the drains were replaced with steel ones. The same month, the resident says that pest contractor D trapped some rats in her loft and proofed the loft from her neighbour, after which activity in her loft subsequently quietened. However, she expressed concern that the loft had been proofed during a ‘live’ infestation; there were now dead carcasses in her loft that needed removal; and the loft needed to be sanitised.
59. In March 2023, the landlord updated the Ombudsman that a list of works were agreed via the resident’s solicitor, began the week commencing 6 March 2023, and were completed apart from loft insulation and sanitisation. It said its contractor were undertaking monthly pest treatment, no bait was being taken and it was expected that loft insulation works could commence after a visit on 27 March 2023. It said that its contractor was carrying out works and ongoing monitoring in respect to the neighbouring properties, and they would also inspect the cavities of one neighbouring property so as not to cause any internal damage to the resident’s property. It said that it had commissioned a serious case review and that for some months now, it had put in place weekly internal meetings to review and monitor progress in the case. It said its legal team were then liaising with the resident’s solicitor to provide updates.
60. The resident’s account advises that the same month, a contractor removed ivy from a neighbour’s wall near to a vent which provided an ingress point for vermin; wire mesh was put in parts of a neighbouring property’s loft; the party wall was inspected with a borescope; a fogging machine was used to sanitise the resident’s loft; and a dead mouse was found at a neighbouring property.
61. The resident raised concern about the local authority feeling that her property was all clear and agreeing to the landlord’s schedule of works in March 2023. The local authority responded that they were satisfied that there was a current eradication programme at the resident’s and neighbouring properties, as well as a full schedule of works to deal with defects at her property. They said that neither they or the resident could demand intrusive works at any of the properties. They said they had been assured that a more intrusive programme will be undertaken in a neighbouring property, including removal of loft insulation, investigation, and proofing works if required.
62. In April 2023, the resident’s account notes that contractors attended to lay insulation at neighbouring properties.
63. As of May 2023, the resident says that pest contractor D now say they have been told by the landlord not to reattend her loft. She reports that insulation has not yet been installed, and says that not having loft insulation since February 2022 has led to higher energy costs. She indicates that she has received an offer of £1,100 related to a housing claim against the landlord, for a number of issues in her home including the pest issue. She is unhappy with this and feels that the landlord should give her the house as compensation due to the significant impact on her.
64. The resident indicates that the main issue she currently experiences is noise of activity in the cavity/party walls and below the loft floor. She says that after the loft had holes filled with a concrete putty, rats were now getting in via her neighbour’s floor joists under the loft floor, which her son hears in his bedroom. She says that she frequently hears a neighbouring property’s floor joists creak, followed by movement in the cavity. The resident indicates that she still experiences some activity in the loft, and that her view is that even if activity in the loft captured on CCTV is low, this will always indicate a more severe infestation.
65. The resident has raised concern about works and that the landlord frequently lies. She raises concern that pest contractor C’s recommendations for the neighbouring properties never got authorised by the landlord and did not progress. She says she was lied to about no bait being taken, as there had been attendances where it had been noted bait had been taken. She says bait used by pest contractor D used was defective or one rats had formed resistance to. She says that pest contractor D recently carried out a survey of cavity/party walls, but she raised concern about their expertise and the landlord deciding not to do works regardless of the findings. She expresses concern that no hoovering was done before the March 2023 ‘fogging’ sanitisation, and that this sanitisation was done too quickly (5 minutes) to be effective. She raises concern about how pest contractor D have cut back hedges and trees. She says her understanding is that the landlord contests whether it should carry out works at the neighbouring properties since the only reports about pest issues at the block are made by her.
66. The resident says that she would like an independent survey of all three properties and the party walls and cavities, which she says harbour rat and mouse nests. She says a number of works should be done at the property which, for the pest issue, include hoovering of the loft; sanitisation; checks for entry points; proofing with long-term materials; laying of insulation; installation of ultrasonic pest repellers; checks of the roof; and fitting of roof edge clips to address birds coming in and out of the roof.
67. The resident has raised concern about the impact of issues on her and her child since moving into the property in 2009. She explains that the issue has impacted her career, education, health and personal life. She also explains that the issue has impacted her child’s health and education, and provides a January 2023 letter from her child’s school about an observed impact of the conditions of the family home on the child and their education.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

68. The resident complains that she was offered a move to an affordable rent property as opposed to a social rent property. This was not the focus of the complaint which completed the landlord’s procedure, however a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review support it can offer the resident in respect to a social rent housing move, if this is something she wishes to explore.
69. The resident is unhappy with a number of issues at the property, including additional issues that are the subject of a housing disrepair claim. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. This means that the Ombudsman will not investigate all the complaints the resident has about her landlord, which the resident has the option to raise as complaints to the landlord, or make a decision about whether a compensation offer for the housing disrepair claim is reasonable. This investigation focuses on the issues which were raised to the landlord under its complaints procedure in October 2021, and which were the focus of its final response in December 2021.
70. The resident states that she has experienced pest issues for over a decade and requests a rent refund going back to 2009. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42 (m) of the Scheme also sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. The Ombudsman determined a complaint from the resident in 2019. This means that this investigation will not consider events earlier than six months before the resident’s complaint in October 2021.
71. While the above is the case, this investigation has decided to take into account events in respect to the pest issues up until recently. These are a continuation of, and relate to, the resident’s original complaint about the landlord’s actions for the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft and walls

72. This Service understands that the resident feels the landlord has failed to effectively address rodent issues in the loft and walls which, while they have not affected living areas of the property, has impacted her and her child’s physical and mental health. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her and her family, particularly as they are vermin-phobic and maintain high standards of cleanliness.
73. In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to say what the landlord should do to ensure that the loft and walls of the property are rodent-free. It is also not our role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
74. Under the law, the landlord is obligated to ensure that the property is habitable and free from the risk of disease, while under its repairs policy, it is responsible to take action for rat infestations while tenants are responsible for mice infestation. The landlord is also obligated to maintain the structure of the property, and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, used by local authorities when assessing hazards and risks in a property, says that landlords should take preventative measures to reduce the means of access by pests to a ‘minimum.’
75. The resident has reported rodent activity, however rodents do not seem to have entered living areas of the property. There is limited evidence that any activity has been deemed a heavy infestation. The landlord and the resident’s contractors have inspected on occasion and found little activity. The resident has noted periods where she had and heard little activity. A November 2021 inspection said there was a rat issue, but subsequent inspections in February and March 2022 note mice activity. The nature and extent of any activity has therefore not always been clear.
76. Whatever the extent of the activity, it was clearly recognised that issues were present for which action was necessary and after the resident’s reports, the landlord has visited the resident and neighbouring properties; arranged visits, pest treatments and proofing programmes by at least 5 different contractors, including industry leaders; carried out surveys, jetting and proofing of drains; carried out multiple ‘sanitisations’ of the loft; trimmed trees and vegetation in the vicinity; and carried out a camera survey of the walls. This shows that the landlord has taken many actions in response to the resident’s reports and in line with recommendations from its staff, contractors and the local authority environmental health department.
77. The resident has requested for ‘permanent’ proofing, and the Ombudsman understands her desire for proofing at the property which provides greater inability by rodents to access it, given this is a recurrent issue. However, we also understand that prevention of access by rodents into a property is challenging, as is confirmed by the landlord’s contractor’s November 2021 statement that it was very difficult to find and seal up breaches in lofts. This means that it does not seem possible nor reasonable to expect the landlord to definitively prevent pests from ever entering the property. It is reasonable however to expect the landlord to take action to keep access to a minimum, which it is evident it has tried to do.
78. The resident has detailed her views about what she thinks needs to be done, which includes the landlord following her own contractor recommendations for roofers to fix holes; inspections by an independent surveyor; and investigation and deconstruction of walls. She has also expressed dissatisfaction with how many things have been done, such as tree trimming and sanitisation.It is not in this Service’s role or expertise to definitively decide on such issues. The landlord would not be expected to follow the resident’s recommendations without inspection by it or its own contractors, or if it does not agree with them. While the resident’s views should be taken into account, the landlord is ultimately entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors about appropriate works and if these have been done in a satisfactory way.
79. The evidence shows that the local authority environmental health department, which has provided ongoing support to the resident, has been satisfied with actions taken by the landlord; has not deemed the property uninhabitable; has not demanded further intrusive works; has not expressed concern about how specific works have been done or about a lack of action for a specific issue; and has not issued enforcement notices for a category 1 hazard being present. This and the resident’s account that activity in the loft has declined suggests that the landlord’s actions in respect to the substantive issue itself have been effective in reducing pest activity.
80. However, while the local authority has not expressed concerns about the specific actions taken by the landlord, they have warned of enforcement action and expressed concern about delays in progress; communication with the resident; and lack of provision of action plans and works schedules. They also raised concern about the landlord’s handling lead to a breakdown in trust and the resident feeling unsupported with the issue. This reflects some issues that are evident in the landlord’s handling of matters, which is not satisfactory.
81. There were delays at points, which led to the resident not knowing what was going on; for example after the resident contacted the landlord in July 2021, it did not act until September 2021, and only after chasing from her.
82. There were points where the landlord did not communicate and manage the resident’s expectations effectively. The resident was given the impression that  the 17 December 2021 visit would involve a ‘working at heights’ team to address external access points, and a repairs operative to seal holes on a pest contractor’s advice. However at this visit only the pest contractor (not the repairs operative) carried out proofing, and it is not evident that wider conclusions were made about internal and external access points at the block.
83. It is evident that pest contractor C identified holes in the loft to the outside at a neighbouring property, and recommended a programme which included tracking how rats entered the building. The resident has raised concern that not enough was being done at neighbouring properties, and the landlord could have been clearer (in writing) about works it was doing at neighbouring properties to prevent entry by pests, to show these were in line with recommendations it received.
84. There have been at least five different pest contractors involved since 2021, and the landlord has written multiple times to the resident to set out the commencement of new plans of action, but it is not clear these have been effectively monitored and often there has been limited detail in subsequent updates about how a plan of action went. This has led to the landlord’s approach not being clear at times, and will have resulted in a confusing and frustrating customer journey for the resident. In addition, while the resident’s account suggests they did some effective work, it is not clear why a mould specialist was engaged to do pest control, nor is it clear why pest contractor C were disengaged due to the landlord’s reported inability to contact them, when the resident reported being able to contact them. It is understandable that this may have contributed to distrust the resident has had of the landlord.
85. There seemed to be general lack of oversight of pest contractor C’s involvement. While the landlord reported multiple difficulties contacting them for updates, such as in May and September 2022, it transpired in October 2022 that the landlord had not authorised proofing works (which the resident’s account says were later done), even though it said in March 2022 that it had asked them to identify and resolve issues with possible ingress points. The landlord should have ensured that there were effective communication channels with pest contractor C; it was regularly monitoring progress; and it had done everything to ensure its commitments in respect to pest contractor C were met.
86. The landlord’s approach has been unclear for other aspects such as the roof. It is evident from the resident’s account that roof inspections have been carried out, however the outcomes to these are not entirely clear, which is not satisfactory.
87. The resident has raised concerns on a number of occasions that trees and greenery had not been cut back sufficiently. While the landlord seemed to have been satisfied about what had been done in a December 2022 visit, the Ombudsman would have liked to have seen evidence that the landlord inspected after each occasion trees and greenery were cut back and confirmed to the resident that it was satisfied with how this was done. This is a comment generally applicable to other works that have been done. In addition, the recurrent nature of the issues means that it would be beneficial for the landlord to be more proactive in respect to the trees and greenery, and so an order is made for the landlord in respect to this.
88. The resident sent a very high volume of correspondence restating issues and views on what needed to be done. While it will have been difficult to respond to all the resident’s correspondence, it would have been helpful if the landlord had provided clear written positions and explanations on issues the resident repeatedly raised from 2021, such as permanent roof blocking, which it could have then referred back to at appropriate periods.
89. The resident reported that walls and cavities should be investigated from around October 2021. The landlord was not obligated to accommodate this request, which has never been recommended by any of the contractors involved, but the landlord should have acknowledged it and set out a clear written position. The landlord did not seem to acknowledge the request until March 2022, five months later, and said the cavities would be investigated by pest contractor C. However pest contractor C did not do this. The landlord then restated in May and October 2022 that the walls and cavities would be investigated, but the resident’s account advises this was not done until around March 2023, a year after the commitment was made. While it was positive for the landlord to accommodate the resident’s request, it was not satisfactory that it mismanaged her expectations and took such a long time to meet its commitment.
90. The evidence shows that in February 2022 the mould specialist installed a sanitisation machine in the loft, and it was agreed for the resident to be reimbursed for the electricity costs. The resident says she incurred £45 additional electricity costs, which is in line with the mould specialist’s estimation of £43.77, and says this has remained unpaid.
91. The evidence advises that in February 2022, the loft insulation was completely removed, and the loft has remained without insulation until the present. This has meant that the landlord’s commitment to replace the loft insulation has been pending, and loft insulation has not been in place, for over a year. The resident says that as a result, she has had increased heating costs in the property.
92. In summary, the resident and her son have clearly found rodent activity in lofts and walls distressing, the landlord has taken action in response to this and it is not evident that there has been a heavy infestation, that pests have accessed the living areas of the property, and that the property has been rendered uninhabitable. While the resident disagrees with many actions the landlord has taken, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors, and no concerns with the actions themselves have been raised by qualified professionals such as the local authority. There is no evidence in respect to the substantive issue that would lead this Service to make the findings and orders that the resident seeks.
93. However, it is clear that there have been delays; issues with the management of works; and issues with communication. The resident has also gone without loft insulation for a lengthy period and incurred costs related to the pest issue which it is not evident she received assurances would be reimbursed in a timely way. It is understandable that these will have caused frustration and distress to the resident and undermined her trust, which is not conducive to the landlord and tenant relationship. The cumulative effect and impact of the landlord’s handling of the issue means the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to make a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft and walls, and to make some orders and recommendations.

Determination (decision)

94. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft and walls.

Reasons

95. There is no evidence in respect to the substantive issue that would lead this Service to make the findings and orders that the resident seeks. However, it is clear that there has been delays; issues with the management of works; and issues with communication, which will have caused frustration and distress to the resident and undermined her trust in the landlord. The resident has also gone without loft insulation for a lengthy period and incurred costs related to the pest issue which it is not evident that she received assurances would be reimbursed in a timely way.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

96. The landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling.
97. The landlord to reimburse the resident £45 for the costs of running the Hydroxyl Generator in February 2022.
98. The landlord to liaise with the resident to obtain heating bills, to calculate if there has been an increase in heating usage since the loft insulation was removed in February 2022. The landlord should reimburse the cost of any evidenced increase in usage.
99. The landlord to liaise with the resident in respect to the installation of her preferred type of insulation, and set out the action plan and timeframe for this in writing to her.
100.      The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of this decision.
101.      The landlord to review the current status of its actions in respect to pest treatment and proofing at the resident’s property, including the loft, and set out this in writing to the resident.
102.      The landlord to review pest proofing works it has carried out at neighbouring properties against recommendations from pest contractors such as pest contractor C. It should then write to the resident with explanation about any recommendations that were made; what it has done and why; and its position on carrying out any further pest proofing works to neighbouring properties.
103.      The landlord to review inspection reports and works for the roof and guttering, and the resident’s reports that more works should be done such as fitting of roof clips to deter birds. It should then write to the resident with explanation about any recommendations that were made; what it has done and why; and its position on carrying out any further roof works.
104.      The landlord to review the trees and vegetation surrounding the block to check it is satisfied these have been sufficiently trimmed; review whether periodic maintenance needs to be programmed to minimise the risk of pest access; and write to the resident to confirm the outcome to these.
105.      The landlord to review any other steps it is taking to minimise the risk of pest access at the block or resident’s property, and write to the resident with any relevant explanation about this.
106.      The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within six weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

107.      The landlord to review its handling and communication in respect to pest reports, to ensure that action plans are communicated to residents and then effectively monitored.
108.      The landlord to review advice, support and options it can offer the resident to transfer to another social rent property, taking into account her current disability; her and her child’s phobias and sensitivities; and the reported impact of issues at the property on them.
109.      The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of its intentions in respect to the above recommendations within four weeks of this decision.