Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202424772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424772

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

2 July 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children, one of whom is neurodivergent. The day-to-day management of the property is carried out by a managing agent.
On 6 March 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord as she said there was an issue with mice in the block which had been ongoing for 4 years. The landlord responded on 20 March 2024 to say that the managing agent had confirmed that it had not had any reports of rodents for 18 months. It said that in September 2023 an isolated report of mice was dealt with, and pest control attended in May 2023 and January 2024 to deal with reported rat issues in the bin store.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint as there had been confusion over whether the landlord or managing agent was responsible for the block. It awarded £10 compensation for any confusion regarding who to report issues to.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 July 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that she had found mice on her balcony making it unusable, the block had a strong unpleasant smell, and a dead mouse was left in the bin store for an extended period.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 28 August 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding pests as:
1. The managing agent was responsible for pest control and the condition of the bin store. It confirmed that pest controllers visited monthly to install new bait boxes and remove rodents.
2. A survey indicated that rodents were entering the bin store due to its condition. It said that residents were not using it correctly and there was an excess of waste.
3. It believed that rodents were not accessing bait boxes installed by the managing agent’s pest contractor as there was sufficient food in the bin store from excess waste.
The landlord committed to provide feedback to the managing agent regarding the mouse in the bin store not being removed at the earliest opportunity. It said that the local housing team would advise residents on proper use of the bin store through letters and regular estate inspections. It planned to give warnings to those who were found to be purposefully cross-contaminating or dumping waste inappropriately.
On 26 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its findings as the pest issue had not been resolved. She said that the living conditions were affecting her and her children’s wellbeing.
The landlord inspected the bin store on 30 October and 12 November 2024 and found:
1. The bin store was poorly managed and misused.
2. There were no recycling facilities.
3. Rats were present, and it could not locate any bait boxes.
4. The bin store was not secure, was being accessed by non-residents, and had a strong smell of urine.
5. The managing agent had not completed any cleaning.
6. Rats were accessing the front of the building through structural gaps, wall cavities and drains.
The landlord met with residents on 18 November 2024 to discuss their concerns about the building management. It inspected the block on 20 November 2024 with the managing agent and notified all residents of its findings on 4 December 2024. It confirmed it planned to take over management of the block itself.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We acknowledge the resident’s concern that pest issues had been ongoing for several years. The Scheme limits our consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and us within a reasonable timeframe. As such, this investigation has focussed on events that led to the formal complaint in early 2024.

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation

The Ombudsman asked the landlord for a copy of the agreement between the landlord and the managing agent, but it did not provide it. However, we would expect that the service agreement regarding repairs and maintenance would be in line with the landlord’s own policies.
The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will attend within 5 working days after a report of pests. A third-party assessor will complete an initial assessment and complete or plan appropriate treatment. It also states that if an infestation has an elevated risk of spreading and affecting neighbouring properties such as rats in a block of flats, it will consider “significant proactive measures” to prevent or mitigate spread.
Repair records and internal communications show that there was considerable confusion regarding whether the landlord or the managing agent was responsible for the management of the property. In one email, the landlord confirmed that its information was out of date for multiple sites. This poor record keeping impacted the service the resident received as it gave her conflicting messages throughout the process. As we set out in our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, it is vital for landlords to have proper agreements in place with the managing agent with clarity around roles and responsibilities.
The evidence shows that, following the resident’s complaint, there was a pest control visit to the block in March 2024. This noted that no bait had been consumed, and the bin areas were clean.
Further pest control visits took place in April and May 2024. The pest contractor identified pest activity in the communal area of a block (in the ground floor riser). They noted bait had been taken and put down additional bait. It would have been reasonable for the managing agent to have identified at that stage (alongside the pest contractor, if appropriate) how the rodents were entering the building and what proofing works would be necessary to prevent that. We note that an inspection in November 2024 identified structural issues including damaged drains, holes in the cement work, holes in the stair to the block and that the bin store door had been “chewed through”. We have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident with an update on its pest control actions.
The pest contractor also raised concerns at those visits about the bin store as the door was blocked by bags of rubbish and that there was “loose waste” beneath the bins. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that rubbish being improperly disposed of by residents was the cause of the infestation. It said it would take steps to educate residents on proper bin store usage including by letters and inspections. This was a reasonable step to try to ensure the bin store was used correctly. The landlord also acknowledged that the rodents were not taking the bait, as they were likely feeding on discarded waste.
The landlord also acknowledged the unpleasant smell in the bin store. In its stage 1 complaint response, it explained this was due to human activity, rather than pest activity. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the managing agent had asked the cleaning contractors to “be more thorough”. While that was a practical step to take, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have engaged further with the managing agent at that stage to see what additional action they could take to prevent such activity, rather than solely deal with the clean up. We can see that in November 2024 the landlord told residents it had agreed to introduce additional safety measures such as key fobs and gates to prevent non-residents gaining access. It said it would also upgrade CCTV and communal lighting and would consider bringing cleaning and pest control in house as the block was not up to the expected standards. We welcome these commitments to improve the security of the block including the bin store; however, it would have been reasonable for these measures to have been identified earlier.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the situation was distressing and disruptive and, in particular, that a dead mouse in the bin store should have been removed sooner. It also recognised the impact on the resident and her children and apologised for the distress caused. It did not uphold the complaint as it said pest control was the managing agent’s responsibility. That finding was not reasonable. The landlord had a responsibility to hold its management agent to account in relation to discharging their responsibilities.
While the managing agent was responsible for the maintenance of the building, the landlord was responsible for managing their performance. This includes acting if the agent did not meet their contractual requirements. We have not seen evidence that the landlord escalated the issues to the managing agent. The landlord should have considered whether it was appropriate to enforce the terms of the contract or escalate to senior management if it felt that the managing agent was not meeting the terms.
It was positive that the landlord met with residents in November 2024 to discuss the issues in the block. It met with the managing agent and inspected the block within 2 days of this meeting. In the follow up letter the landlord acknowledged that the residents had made effort to improve the condition of the bin store. It said it would:
1. Introduce additional safety measures such as key fobs and gates to prevent non-residents gaining access.
2. Upgrade CCTV and communal lighting
3. Improve the condition of the bin store.
4. Look at the option of bringing cleaning and pest control in house as the block was not up to the expected standards.
We have seen evidence that the resident relayed her upset, frustration and concern at the rodent infestation, particularly when she found mice on her balcony. She informed the landlord that she and her children were scared to go on the balcony, and in particular this impacted her son who is neurodivergent. The landlord apologised for any distress but did not resolve the issue, and there is no evidence that it highlighted the resident’s child’s vulnerability with the managing agent. For the reasons above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
In this case, had appropriate action been taken by the managing agent, it is likely that works to fully resolve the pest issues in the block (by undertaking proofing works to stop the rodents from entering) would have taken place much earlier. The evidence suggests these works were identified in October and November 2024. It would have been reasonable for them to have been identified as part of the pest inspections in May 2024 when an infestation within the block had been identified.
This delay in remedying matters has evidently caused great distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. Financial compensation of £450 is appropriate in this case. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there have been delays in investigating and remedying pest issues which had a significant impact on a household resident. This sum also takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident’s family which meant that the pest infestation and the handling of it would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The report should be in the format preferred by the resident and a copy must be provided to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident £450 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced due to the landlord’s handling of pests. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not used to offset arrears, where they exist. Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Complete a survey of the block to determine:
  1. Whether there is still evidence of rodents accessing the block.
  2. Which access points still require blocking.
  3. Whether previous pest control methods have been successful.
  4. Whether there are any ongoing environmental factors which the managing agent is responsible for i.e. maintenance of the bin store.
2. Following the survey, the landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an action plan to confirm:
  1. How it will resolve any active infestations.
  2. How it will prevent a recurrence.
  3. A timescale for the completion of any planned works.
  4. This plan must be provided within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure its records relating to whether managing agents are responsible for its properties are up to date, and all residents are aware of who to report issues to.
The landlord should ensure it has a clear process for escalating concerns to managing agents when it identifies service issues.