Notting Hill Genesis (202449049)

Background

1. The property is a 3 bedroom flat in a block of flats. The landlord appointed a managing agent (MA) to oversee the management of the block. The MA was responsible for completing repairs in the communal areas. The resident said to us and the landlord that the household was vulnerable, with several members having disabilities. The resident said that she first reported a pest infestation in October 2024 as she could hear rats in the property walls. She contacted the landlord in February 2025 to report the rats had entered in the property and she and her household had to leave due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord sent pest control and resolved the issue in the property, but the repair related to the entry point of the rats in the communal areas remained unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a rat infestation

5. The landlord took steps to resolve the rat infestation both in the resident’s property and the communal areas and handled some of the resident’s reports in line with its policies. However, in December 2024, it failed to respond to her reports in line with its pest control policy. While it liaised with the building managing agent (MA) about treating the infestation and pest proofing the communal areas, it failed to maintain oversight of the repairs. It also failed to consider alternative solutions when the MA failed to resolve the infestation and adequately pest proof the communal areas.
6. In addition, the landlord did not consistently and effectively communicate with the resident on the works or informed her of her option to make a liability claim for her lost belongings. It also failed to consider the household vulnerabilities. While the landlord offered to pay compensation to the resident, its offer did not adequately reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

8. The landlord appointed a MA to oversee the management of the resident’s building on its behalf and informed the resident that the MA was responsible for repairs in the communal areas. As the freeholder, the landlord retained overall responsibility for repairs to the building, including those in the communal areas, regardless of its contractual arrangements with the MA. It was responsible for keeping oversight of the repairs and ensuring that the MA acted in keeping with its policies and procedures.
9. The landlord’s pest control policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint did not provide a timeframe for responding to pest infestations reports. However, it conveys a sense of urgency in addressing the problem. It says that the landlord will take reports of pest issues seriously because of the potential health risk from pest such as rats and their rapid spread. Additionally, its repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours, make the area safe or complete temporary repairs within 24 hours and complete non urgent repairs within 20 working days. It is therefore reasonable to consider whether the landlord responded to the rat infestation and pest proofing repairs within those timeframes.
10. The evidence shows that the landlord took some steps to resolve the rat infestation both in the resident’s property and the communal areas. For instance:
    1. In January 2025 the landlord reported the rat infestation in the bins store and the underground car park to the MA and instructed them to address the problem. On 17 February 2025 and 3 March 2025, it requested updates and evidence of the actions being taken to resolve the infestation. The MA explained its action plan and shared the pest control contractor’s reports with the landlord. The MA also confirmed that it would send updates to residents.
    2. On 13 February 2025 the landlord promptly informed the MA that the sewage pipe had burst, causing flooding in the underground car park. It subsequently requested an update, and on 19 February 2025, the MA confirmed, that it had resolved the issue and was completing the clean-up. The landlord responded to the repairs in accordance with its repairs policy and maintained oversight of the works in line with its obligations.
    3. It promptly responded to the resident’s report that there were rats inside her property on 27 February 2025. Upon receiving her report, it instructed its pest control contractor to attend the property, and the rats were removed within 4 hours. While this would have felt like a long time to the resident, who reported she could not re-enter her property and was in her nightwear, the landlord’s response timeframe was reasonable and demonstrated that it acted with the required urgency.
    4. On 6 March 2025, the landlord’s pest control contractor recommended pest proofing repairs in the resident’s property. The landlord completed the repairs on 24 March 2025, within its repairs policy 20 working days timeframe.
    5. The resident asked the landlord to box in the holes after filling them to prevent rats from entering the property. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained its reasons for refusing to box in the holes as this was an improvement and not a repair. This was a reasonable explanation, and we found no evidence that its pest control contractor recommended this as a pest proofing measure.
11. While those actions were in line with the landlord’s policies, we have also identified failings in its handling of the matters, including acting on the resident’s reports, maintaining oversight of the repairs, considering the household vulnerabilities and communication with the resident. Examples of these failings are outlined below.
12. The resident said she reported hearing rats in the walls in October 2024 and again when the landlord carried out its annual visit in November 2024. However, the landlord said that she had reported seeing rats in the bin store, which it reported to the MA. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and the evidence neither proves nor disproves either side, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. In this case, without supporting evidence, we cannot determine that the landlord failed to act on the resident’s report that she could hear rats in her property walls in October 2024.
13. However, the resident provided us with evidence of reporting hearing rats in her property walls in November 2024 and December 2024. The landlord did not provide us with any records of such correspondence, and this raises concerns with its record keeping. Additionally, while the landlord said that it had reported her seeing rats in the bin store following its annual visit in November 2024, it did not provide evidence to support this. Timely and accurate records are essential to support appropriate decision making and to promote transparency and accountability. The landlord’s poor recording keeping likely contributed to the delays in addressing the reports of rats in the property walls.
14. In December 2024 the landlord did not demonstrate that in keeping with its pest control policy, it responded to the resident’s reports with a sense of urgency. On 21 December 2024 the resident reported that she could hear rats in her property walls and emailed the landlord on 31 December requesting a call back. We did not see evidence that the landlord acknowledged or acted on her reports until it appointed a pest control contractor 27 days later. The contractor visited the resident 14 days after that. This was 41 days after the resident reported the problem. The delay in addressing the issue caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was fearful that the rats would come inside her property and repeatedly reported her concerns to the landlord.
15. As previously mentioned, on 27 February 2025, the landlord promptly acted on the resident’s report of rats inside her property. However, it did not show that it completed temporary repairs or made the property safe within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy to prevent further entry. The resident reported seeing rats inside the living room when she tried to collect clothes a few days later. As a result, she informed the landlord that she could not return until the property was pest proofed, which the landlord completed on 24 March 2025. This was considerably delayed given the urgency and potential risk to health rats can pose.
16. The resident also said that the family had to split up and stay with different relatives during this period of 3 weeks, highlighting the impact of the delay in making the property safe. The resident informed the landlord of the household vulnerabilities and health conditions, including her grandson’s autism and requested a temporary move. The landlord did not record this, discuss it with her, or consider reasonable adjustments, which was unreasonable and raises concerns about its record keeping and its compliance with its obligations.
17. The failure to record and explore the household reported vulnerabilities led to a failure to consider her request for temporary accommodation in line with its vulnerabilities policy. The policy requires the landlord to adapt its services to mitigate risks for residents with additional needs. On 7 March, the landlord said its “decant” policy excluded pest infestation and refused temporary accommodation. In making this decision, it did not show that it considered the household’s vulnerabilities, whether the property was safe, or whether it should adapt its service. This was unreasonable and caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident and her vulnerable household.
18. Between March and June 2025, the resident repeatedly told the landlord that its pest control contractor had recommended a drain survey to help resolve the rat infestation. While the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had repaired the sewage pipe, it did not confirm whether it had completed the drain survey as recommended by its pest control contractor or explain why it did not. This was unreasonable, particularly as the infestation remained unresolved.
19. While we recognise that since November 2024, the landlord reported and liaised with the MA regarding treatment and pest proofing the communal areas, it did not maintain sufficient oversight of the repairs. For instance,
    1. The landlord said that it had promptly informed the MA about a rat infestation in the bin store following the resident’s report in November 2024. However, we did not see evidence of this or that the MA acted on the report. The landlord was responsible for ensuring that the MA had handled the issue and took timely actions in line with its pest control policy. However, it did not demonstrate that it had exercised adequate oversight to ensure that the MA had acted on the report. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to address the infestation at an earlier stage and prevent the problem from escalating in the communal areas and further issues with rats entering the property.
    2. On 6 March 2025 the MA’s pest control contractor recommended pest proofing repairs in the communal areas. The resident continued to report to the landlord that the holes in the underground car park and the bin store remained. While the landlord liaised with the MA on the matters, it did not show that it satisfied itself they completed the repairs. Additionally, it did not consider inspecting the issue as described in its pest control policy for cases when the issue remains unresolved. The landlord did not provide evidence that this repair was completed to date.
    3. In June 2025, as promised in its stage 2 response, the landlord liaised with the MA about the rat infestation in the communal areas and instructed it to fill holes in the underground car park. However, the landlord did not maintain oversight of the repairs. However, in August 2025, the resident reported that the works remained outstanding and the landlord said it would escalate the matter. By this point, the issue had persisted for 10 months, and the MA had repeatedly failed to resolve it. The landlord should have considered alternatives, such as completing the repairs itself or enforcing the MA’s contractual obligations. Its failure to do so prolonged the delays in completing the repairs and resolving the infestation.
20. The evidence shows that, overall, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident on the matters. It failed to provide adequate updates on its actions. For example:
    1. Following the resident’s reports on 21 and 31 December 2024, that she could hear rats inside her property walls, the landlord did not show that it promptly acknowledged them. It also failed to inform her that, on 17 January 2025, it had instructed a pest control contractor to investigate the problem or provide updates on what would happen next.
    2. In its stage 1 response, it said that that it had sent an update on the treatment of the rat infestation to the resident by post the previous day. However, the resident advised it that she had not received this letter. The landlord did not acknowledge this or offer to resend the letter, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, it did not provide a copy of the letter for this investigation to evidence its action.

The landlord informed the resident that the MA would provide her with regular updates, but the resident repeatedly reported that she had not receive any updates. While we recognise that the landlord liaised with the MA about this, it failed to satisfy itself that the MA was updating the resident. The evidence shows that the MA was updating a group of residents about the rat infestation, but this group did not include the resident. The lack of communication caused frustration to the resident who repeatedly requested updates on the situation.

21. During the complaint process, the landlord failed to inform the resident that she could consider making a liability insurance claim for her lost belongings, as outlined in its compensation policy. The landlord correctly advised her that she could make a claim under her own contents insurance. However, given the circumstances—and the extensive list of items the resident reported having to dispose of, which she shared with the landlord—it would have been reasonable for the landlord to also advise her about the option of making a liability insurance claim.
22. In its stage 2 response the landlord promised to contact the resident by 19 June 2025, with an update. However, it did not provide the update until 31 July 2025. This was unreasonable, the landlord failed to show that it had learned from its previous communication failings. This caused further inconvenience to the resident and was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with her.
23. During the complaint process, the landlord offered to pay £275 in compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, the amount did not reflect the significant impact of the failings identified in this report and the length of time of the failures experienced. Additionally, it did not oversee repairs to their completion, nor it followed on its final response and demonstrated any learning.

24. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy mirrors the Code. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe.
25. In this case, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy. At both stages of the process, it acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its published timeframe. It also correctly informed the resident when it needed longer to respond and agreed new timeframes to issue its complaints responses. The evidence shows that it issued both complaint responses within the revised timeframes. While we have identified some concerns about the accuracy of its responses these have been already explored in the rat infestation part of this section.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. Although the resident informed the landlord of the household vulnerabilities, it did not show that it had recorded this or discussed this with her. Its failings to do so, may have influenced its decision to not offer temporary accommodation or consider reasonable adjustments. We have also seen some further concerns about its record keeping which affected the accuracy of its response and its overall communication.

Communication

27. The landlord failed to consistently and adequately update the resident on the actions taken to resolve the rat infestation and at time to appropriately liaise with its MA.