One Housing Group (202014551)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014551

One Housing Group

30 August 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

The complaint relates to:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.

Background and summary of events

The resident has occupied the property, a two bedroom flat on the second floor, on an assured tenancy, since 3 March 2003. She lives with her family at the property.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported a pest infestation issue, on 30 November 2020, and a visit took place on 4 December 2020. A further visit to the property took place on 10 December 2020 and the job record states the resident reported a smell coming from the oven, mouse droppings and the beginnings of a nest were found in the oven motor/burner. Three holes were blocked at the rear of the oven.
On 22 December 2020, another inspection of the property took place, the record of which said that kitchen plinths were removed and 3 holes sealed with wire wool and rodent sealant. A gap behind the fridge was also sealed and old bait, droppings and nesting materials were swept up and removed. One dead mouse was removed from under the fridge and bait from a previous contractor was still in place. It said 2 deodorisers were left at the property to mask the smell.
The resident reported on 16 and 17 February 2021, that she continued to have problems with an infestation of mice and that she couldn’t have the only property affected.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 February 2021, and it was acknowledged on 18 February 2021. The landlord said it would provide a response within ten working days. In the complaint, the resident said she had paid £300 for someone privately to assess the problem, and wanted that money reimbursed by the landlord. She described the infestation in her kitchen and how it was affecting her family. The resident also sent additional correspondence to the landlord and explained that she had plugged holes in the property, but mice were still getting in and destroying property. The landlord replied to this on 17 February, acknowledging the additional email, as well as five earlier ones it had received, and said her communication was being given attention and it would update her shortly.
A pest control visit was arranged for 18 February 2021. It is noted that all communal areas had been baited. Grease marks along skirting boards indicated rodent activity but the bin stores could not be accessed. The resident emailed the landlord about the mice infestation again, on 19 February, and said she ought to be rehoused.
An inspection took place at the property on 25 February 2021, and it noted all bait points had been checked and no evidence of rodent activity was found.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 2 March 2021, ten working days after receiving it, to the resident’s complaint about mice activity affecting her home and damage it had caused to the kitchen. The landlord noted:
1. Mice were reported by the resident on 5 November 2020 and it arranged for a pest control company to attend the following day, but no recommendations were made.
2. The resident said a private pest control contractor said proofing works would be required underneath the boiler. It then raised a job for this to be done.
3. On 10 December 2020, pest control reattended the property to carry out a course of treatment for mice. Evidence of a mice infestation was found within the oven and the resident was advised to thoroughly clean the oven. The technician blocked three holes using a combination of wire wool and rodent sealant, to prevent further access by mice, and reported no rodenticide was used at the visit from the third-party private contractor she had instructed which had one remaining treatment to complete.
4. On 22 December 2020, a contractor returned to the property and carried out proofing works to block holes not sealed by the resident’s private contractor. The technician noted on his report that there was another visit to be carried out by the private contractor in the new year.
5. Following an attendance on 12 January 2021, it was reported back that a kitchen unit required removal and would need two persons to complete. It apologised that a follow-on job was not raised by the scheduling team. It said due to the pandemic, the in-house repair team was dealing with emergency repairs; but, it should have considered using one of its own contractors, and it was sorry about that.
6. The pest control team was to attend the property and that of the neighbouring flat, also reporting mice activity, for a programme of treatment. The contractor had been asked to carry out a full survey of the block and provide any necessary recommendations for proofing works which would be actioned.
7. The resident was told that a planned supervisor would attend on 4 March 2021 to inspect the kitchen and damage caused from the mice activity.
8. It apologised for the resident having to pursue this issue and its delayed response. It had expressed to the relevant teams the importance of timely communication and this was done through meetings. It had also introduced a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to allow better communication with residents and concerns, enquiries, and complaints raised would be logged on the system and be resolved more efficiently.
9. The complaint was partially upheld. It offered £25 for the right to repair and £25 for the inconvenience caused in line with its complaints policy, and reimbursement of £150 towards the cost of the third-party private contractor that was instructed. This payment of £200 was made to the resident on 22 March 2021.
On 4 March 2021, an inspection at the property took place. It is recorded that holes had been sealed by the resident and another contractor had put down glue board, traps and tracking dust. Minimal activity of rodents was found, and no pest activity was found in common areas.
A job record dated 11 March 2021 details that a visit had been arranged but the resident did not answer when someone called. On 26 March 2021 another job record states there had been no communication from the resident to arrange a visit and no one answered the door.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2021 about having a new kitchen fitted, and on 25 and 26 April, reiterated her concerns about having mice at the property. She asked for an update on repairs.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, and provided a “follow on response” to her formal complaint about pest activity and other issues. In terms of pest proofing, the landlord said this would be done as part of some of the bathroom and kitchen works.
On 18 May 2021, a contractor visited the property, and the job report says droppings were found around a stack and there was a gap that led to under the bath tub. Baits were placed under the bath tub and around the stack and holes that could be reached, were sealed. It was recommended that the bath tub was removed so the holes around the stack could be filled.
In an email dated 19 May 2021 sent by the resident to the landlord, she asked when her bathroom would be furbished, as she still had mice at the property. An inspection report dated 20 May 2021 stated all gaps in the kitchen were sealed using rodent sealant prior to a new kitchen being fitted. The following day, on 21 May 2021, another report says the remaining holes in the kitchen and utility cupboard were sealed. The baits were also checked, and it was found a small amount had been taken.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord again about when her bathroom would be refurbished. Internal emails sent from landlord staff on 28 May 2021 refer to updating the resident on 25 May. An email sent from the resident in response the same day has also been provided, and refers to her wanting the bathroom work completed. An internal email of 28 May 2021, says someone had called the resident that day to confirm it would carry out the bathroom works as agreed.
On 9 June 2021, a contractor visited the property to fill some holes the resident was concerned about. The following day, a contractor went to the property and removed the bath tub so, “access could be gained to seal hole leading to stack. Hole has been sealed using a wire mesh where possible and expanding foam due to size of the hole”. The bathroom and kitchen works were completed in June 2021.
On 21 June 2021, an inspection of the property took place and no further rodent activity was found. It was recorded that baits had been removed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 September 2021 to say that mice were still in her property, and to complain about the smell and disruption they were causing. An inspection that took place the same day noted, “On today’s visit it was reported by the tenant that mouse activity was present over past few nights. I have sealed holes found under the kitchen units. Mice issue is most likely coming from other flats.” It was recommended that block treatment was required. The resident wrote to the landlord the same day, reiterating the findings from the visit and how it was affecting her. She said she was unhappy the issue was ongoing and asked for alternative accommodation.
On 8 September 2021, an internal email between landlord staff noted an inspection had been arranged the day before. The records show that an inspection then took place on 8 September and new bait was placed in the property. On 17 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed a baiting programme was underway, and the first of three visits had taken place on 8 September.
On 20 September 2021, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated to stage two, and the landlord confirmed this in writing, the same day. The landlord said it was sorry for the experience she was going through, and it was noted the resident wanted to move if the issue with the mice could not be resolved.
The landlord acknowledged on 22 September, the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two. On 24 September 2021, an inspection found there was nothing to report, other than the sink and cooker needed sealing. The landlord emailed the resident the same day following a query it received from her about not being notified when properties were available to bid on, and it said it recommended to all residents that they log in and check on a weekly basis, what properties were available.
On 25 September 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the issue with the mice was ongoing and the effect it was having on her and her family. She sent an email on 26 September, two further emails on 27 September and another on 29 September, along with photographs. The landlord acknowledged these and said it was, “sorry to learn that despite our best efforts to resolve the pest issue this is continuing. I acknowledge the stress and frustration this is causing you”. It said the matter would be discussed with a colleague, in order to decide next steps.
An internal email dated 30 September 2021, said the resident had said the pest control company had advised that all flats ought to be treated. It questioned if that had been put in a report, and if so, what was being done about that. On the same day, a further internal email said it had contacted the pest control company and asked for a report “advising possible entry, but it is strange that this is the only property that has contacted us from what I can see.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 October 2021, and said it had tried calling her and had left a voicemail. It said, a full inspection was scheduled for the following week to consider the issues she had raised. In the meantime, it said it would like to speak with her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 October, and said the mice issue was ongoing and that she wanted action taken. On the same day, the resident obtained a quote in the amount of £285, for cleaning a sofa, rug and dining chairs.
A letter dated 5 October 2021, was sent by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint, at stage two of the complaints procedure. It was sent by email to the resident on 6 October 2021. It said the complaint was about mice affecting the resident’s home and causing damage to the kitchen cabinets. It said:
1. It was sorry for the impact the situation had had on the resident and her family.
2. It was unable to move her permanently to another property due to the rent account being in arrears but it would also be unlikely a permanent transfer would be a quick process if possible at all, given the housing pressures and persons that were in a higher priority category than the resident.
3. It attached a transfer request form to complete, but it would only be processed once the resident’s account was not in arrears.
4. It could do more to try and identify the root cause of the issue.
5. It would carry out a full intrusive survey of the building, including all properties and communal areas to indicate entry and exit points, and it would aggressively bait all properties together with communal areas to ensure the issue was resolved.
6. The baiting programme would be a 12-week programme and if necessary, it would undertake this again if not successful. All reports received from the pest control company would be shared with the resident for complete transparency and it would take action on any recommendations.
7. Kitchen works were to be undertaken. This baiting and kitchen works would be monitored by a Customer Excellence Co-ordinator who would be the resident’s point of contact during this process and would be in contact shortly once the resident confirmed she was happy to proceed.
8. An Area Repairs Manager would oversee these works and liaise with all parties throughout.
9. It would update the resident in December 2021; no later than the 8 December 2021.
10. The impact on the resident was not wholly recognised at stage one. In future, it said investigating officers “would consider the impact on every occasion especially when these types of issues occur and continue to occur”. It apologised again and said the complaint was upheld. It offered £1,000 compensation, to recognise the impact on the resident and her family. The landlord has confirmed this was paid to the resident, in addition to the earlier £200.
On 7 October 2021, a job report from a visit to the property, recorded that upon inspection, proofing was intact; however, there was a hole above the socket for the cooker, which was sealed, using rodent seal.
The resident obtained a quote on 9 October from a company to replace carpet, in the amount of £420 plus VAT.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 October 2021 and accepted the offer of compensation made under stage two. She said she was pleased the building was going to be inspected and that the whole property would be repainted. On 11 October 2021, she emailed the landlord again and pointed out that many belongings had had to be thrown away and her furniture needed a deep clean. She said she had lost, due to bite holes, droppings and urine:
1. Clothing.
2. Bedding.
3. Towels.
4. Throws.
5. Rugs.
6. Cushions.
7. Furniture.
8. Kitchen items.
The resident said her child needed a new bed and the furniture needed cleaning, at a cost of £250. On 11 October 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and said in light of her recent emails, it would increase the offer of compensation by £350; to £1,350.
The resident chased the landlord about her cooker not working, on 11 and 14 October 2021. The landlord emailed the same day, noting she had issues with her cooker. It said as per the tenancy agreement, it was not responsible for maintaining or replacing it. However, a visit would be planned in order to view the item, in order decide what to do.
An inspection of the property took place on 15 October 2021, which recorded “Holes around electrical panel sealed off using rat tape. No further activity was found.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2021, and noted someone was dealing with her cooker issue. She said she would like a fresh start, and the property to be repainted. She also sent the landlord details of someone who could repair the oven along with a quote of £96 for the call out.
An internal email between landlord staff, dated 21 October 2021, said that following the oven being moved to carry out some proofing, it was not working; so, payment of £96 needed to be arranged for someone to diagnose the repair needed. It is noted an engineer was to visit the property the following day and the landlord spoke with the resident, who confirmed someone was attending between 5pm and 7pm. It seems though, that the engineer did not attend that day.
The landlord said on 22 October 2021 that it would arrange for the property to be decorated, once the baiting and proofing work was done. On 24 October, the resident sent a thank you email to the landlord, for having said the property could be painted and decorated.
On 25 October 2021, the resident provided the landlord with details of another engineer that could visit the property and look at the oven. It would cost £145 plus any parts. An engineer was arranged to attend the following day, but did not show up; therefore, another visit was arranged for 2 November 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 November 2021, to complain that she had been unable to use her cooker since 7 October, and she wanted it to replace it. The landlord sent an email to the resident the same day, referring to an email it had already sent her, 30 minutes before. It asked the resident to await its decision. On 4 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident offering her £720 to purchase a new cooker.
On 5 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she wanted the hall painted, as well as the rooms at the property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 January 2022 that there was still an issue with mice, and it had failed to follow up on doing treatment it said it would, including treating the whole building for the infestation.
An internal email sent by landlord’s staff on 6 January 2022, said, “there is history in regard to mice, we have removed the kitchen, and we have proofed, we repainted the whole property, and we reimbursed for her cooker. I would be grateful if you could contact the pest control company, get them in urgently to bait and liaising with the resident”. The landlord then wrote to the resident and said it had chased the relevant departments, and asked them to contact her.
The resident called the landlord on 7 January 2022, to obtain an update. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day, and said baiting works were completed and it would respond to the concerns she raised on 3 January, within five working days.
On 13 January 2022, an internal email between landlord staff referred to the resident having said it had not completed the promises it made when it responded to her complaint. The same day, the landlord emailed the resident, and said there was nothing outstanding to do. It said its “policy isn’t to bait inside individual properties, this was done for you as a good will gesture and advised that going forward any baiting would be something that you would need to do”.
An email sent internally between landlord’s staff on 1 March 2022, says in relation to work done at the property, “We have completely re-decorated her whole home, we have paid over £2000 in compensation, including around £700 towards a new cooker – we have proofed her home and advised if there was anything else it would be something she would need to address.”
An email exchange between the landlord and pest control company on 8 March 2022, refers to the landlord having created a job in January 2022, but it had not been aware that the technician from the pest control company had been unable to make contact with the resident, in order to book works in.
The resident emailed the landlord twice on 15 March 2022, to complain about mice still being in the property, and that the landlord had not fulfilled its obligations to deal with the matter or rehouse her, and some of her property had been damaged.
The landlord arranged for someone to attend on 15 March 2022, to look at communal areas and the resident’s property, to investigate and bait for mice again. They were also asked to proof all holes. The job report says, hygiene was good and there was a light infestation of mice, but no proofing was required. It said there were some droppings but no obvious ingress points. The report did recommend that all other flats in the building and in the neighbouring property ought to be investigated to find the source of the mice issue within the building. It also noted that holes behind the toilet and sink required blocking.
On 21 and 22 March 2022, the resident sent the landlord photographs and wrote to complain that there was still an infestation at her property. On 22 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had been assisting the resident in dealing with pests, out of goodwill; however, it was her responsibility to address pest control within the property. It referred to having baited communal areas as well as inside the property, and proofed inside the property, replaced damaged items and redecorated the flat.
The landlord also said it had attended as part of a three-part riddance scheme, with the first visit being on 15 March. It said on that occasion, it “did not find any obvious point of ingress when they attended. Although they did advise that there were some mice dropping, their report doesn’t reflect the statement in your email, as there was no saliva, blood, urine or dead rodents found. Their report indicated that the mice presence is light, which is not uncommon in properties with a basement in an outside area.”
The landlord said it had also attended that day (22 March), and it was awaiting the report. However, it was unable to decant the resident from the property due to the ongoing pest issues, as mice could be in any property. The landlord concluded by saying it was committed to continuing some of the steps it had previously communicated to the resident.
The report from the visit on 22 March, said, “Today’s visit is visit 2 of a mouse control program. On today’s visit some bait take was found and some mouse droppings found under the kitchen units. I have placed multiple bait types to see if an alternative bait will work better.” It recommended treatment to the whole property.
The resident sent six emails to the landlord on 23 March 2022. A further email was sent on 24 March, repeating her concerns and said belongings at the property needed cleaning, and she wanted to be found a property with no infestation, and didn’t have damp and mould. The resident was provided with an estimate of £360 by a cleaning company, to clean the sofa, dining chairs, two rugs and a carpet. The landlord issued a response on 25 March 2022. It referred the resident to its letter of 22 March, and added that her comment about the condition of a property she had recently viewed, would be sent to the lettings team. It would also notify a director of her latest communication, once they returned from leave.
A pest inspection took place at the resident’s property and in communal areas, on 25 March 2022. The job record said:
1. a decomposing rodent under the kitchen sink had been found.
2. A sanitiser was sprayed to help remove a foul smell.
3. The property was not the source of the issue in the building; however, was found to have mice entering the flat. The source of entry was not found.
4. “As previously stated investigations into the other flats is required to treat the issue appropriately. No bait take was found as alternative food source is likely to be in other flats.”
The landlord acknowledged the resident had sent six emails on 28 and 29 March 2022, as well as six emails the week before. It said her complaint had been addressed at stage two, and a follow up response had been sent. However, her latest emails would also be considered. These emails set out her concerns about mice in her property, creating holes and leaving urine and droppings, and some decomposing.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 30 March 2022, complaining again about the mice infestation. She said she was exhausted as the noise from the rodents was waking her up during the night and the kitchen smelt of decomposing mice. She said she had to have windows open and air fresheners in the property, due to the smell. She said the landlord had ignored findings from pest control, that had identified that the issue lay with the building in general, and not just her property.
The landlord then sent a response to the resident’s report, the same day. It said it had sent a message to the technician that attended the property, to ask if the visit was his final visit for treatment and for proof work had been to the property several times.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 March 2022, and acknowledged that pest control had been involved since 6 November 2020. She said pest control had been at the property four times a week, including 22, 25 and 29 March 2022 and were still making holes and finding new entrances.
The pest control company sent an email to the landlord on 31 March 2022 summarising the treatment it recommended. That being:
1. Six baitsafe stations be installed to the ceiling of the communal area in different locations, to allow access into the areas which rodents used to move around the building, allowing them to access bait.
2. Holes would be cut into the ceiling to install the baitsafe stations.
3. A pest prevention service be implemented, involving:
  1. Eight routine visits a year.
  2. Two emergency call outs per year if required.
  3. All internal high-risk areas would be monitored, including ceiling bait points.
On 4 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord once again, to complain about an issue with mice getting into the property. She said the infestation first occurred in October 2020, and the mice were accessing the property through various holes. She explained she was concerned about there being a risk to health as well as the impact on clothing and property, as they were being destroyed. She explained she had to get up before her family each day to clean up mice droppings, urine and dead mice.
The resident explained she was offered another property, which she was excited to accept and obtained moving boxes and arranged removals; however, the move did not take place because the new property had damp. She urged the landlord to find her a new home for her family.
Further emails were sent by the resident to the landlord, on 5 April, 7 April, 8 April, 29 April, 3 May, 5 May and 16 May 2022. They reiterated her concerns about mice at the property and that no one had been out recently to look at it. The resident referred to photographs that had been taken of mice droppings, and said it was not her responsibility to deal with the mice infestation. She also reiterated she had been offered another property on 18 March 2022, but when she viewed it, it had damp, so she could not accept it.
The landlord responded on 8 April and explained the property which had been viewed had been unventilated so had condensation, but the property was free from any issues. It offered the resident a chance to then view another property. The resident, in one of her emails, commented on viewing another property on 29 April 2022, which she said didn’t look the way she had hoped, as it needed work doing to it.
A pest control report dated 28 April 2022 recorded that six bait stations were installed to the ceiling of the communal area in different locations.
On both 25 and 27 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about having had no response to further reports of an infestation, and reiterated the impact it was having on her. The latter set out details of items affected by the mice in the property. They were:
1. Clothing with holes in.
2. Children’s toys that had to be thrown away as they had mouse urine on them.
3. Two large rugs and one small one had to be thrown away due to mouse droppings and urine.
4. A large mirrored wardrobe had bite marks on and droppings inside aswell as on top. Due to urine and decomposing mice, it had to be taken down and disposed of.
5. Washing machine and dryer wires were bitten so were no longer safe to use and there were droppings and urine on both items. They were disposed of via the local council.
6. Kitchen items, including pots, pans, cups, plates, cutlery had to be replaced as they contained droppings and had urine marks on them.
7. Bedding had to be replaced.
There is no evidence of the landlord responding to these.
On 5 July 2022, a pest inspection took place in the communal areas, and the associated report says access was limited but there were no reported issues since the previous inspection visit and all monitoring points should still be in place. It said monitoring of the site would continue.
On 11, 20 and 25 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord complaining about the ongoing mice issue, and how no alternative accommodation had been found. She said how upsetting this situation was for her, and that a lot of her property had been destroyed and nothing had been done to deal with the problems permanently. She also referred to photographs she had taken of the property.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 July 2022, in response to one she received on 26 July. She said she was unhappy with what had been said, as it had not accepted responsibility for the mice infestation at the property, and the issues it had caused. She said the landlord had not treated the whole building as it had said it would and she wanted to be found alternative accommodation.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 29 July 2022, and said a job had been scheduled at her property that day, but only one person attended, and they did not have a surveyor with them, as expected. She said she still had mice in her property; in her view, a different generation of mice.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said it had instructed a contractor to attend and inspect the entire flat for points of entry and proof internally and externally. That he had tried contacting her twice the day before without any success, and would continue doing so that day. On 24 August, the resident responded and said she had called pest control on 19 August to explain her intercom was not working well; however, she said this message was not passed on, so when they came to the property, they could not get access. She said she was unhappy the pest control company did not leave a message and that the contractor had said she ought to answer her phone, and she did not want him in her home.
The resident confirmed a surveyor had been to the property on 1 August 2022 and she agreed with him that parts of the kitchen would need removing in order to gain access, but she had concerns over the contractors coming. The landlord sought confirmation that 2 September 2022 would be a suitable date for pest control to attend. It is not clear if a response was sent.
On 5 September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord, that there were still issues with mice at the property. She said that although a pest control company had visited her many times in the past, the company only provided poison. A different pest control company had visited the property on 2 September 2022, and provided “proper proofing”, to stop the mice getting in to the property. She commented that on 2 September 2022, when the other pest control company attended, it noted:
1. There were several holes in the kitchen which had not been addressed.
2. There was an open visible drain in the bathroom.
3. Gaps were found in the storage area.
4. Beading work was needed in both bedrooms and any holes sealed.
5. Mice were getting in to the washing machine storage area and leaving droppings.
The resident also listed the items that had been destroyed, that she had mentioned in her 27 May 2022 correspondence.
The resident said she wanted compensation for all she and her family had been through, and had lost by way of the mice destroying property. She felt the landlord had taken an apathetic attitude towards the problem and didn’t understand that the infestation had been a nightmare for her and her family.
A pest inspection of the communal areas was attempted on 8 September 2022, but access to the building was not possible.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to clarify the time of an appointment. The resident replied the same day and said she expected the appointment on Monday 29 September, although that was then clarified as being Monday 19 September 2022.
On 10 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord again about the mice infestation issue, reiterating the problems she had been suffering with as a result.
A pest inspection was done on 29 November 2022, and the job record says, accessible monitoring points were checked and maintained where required to continue ongoing coverage throughout the site. It also said secure ranger trap boxes would be fitted at the next visit, to remove any risk of toxic contamination. It noted housekeeping processes were good which would help with ongoing control of the problem.
The landlord has produced a site inspection report from 20 January 2023, when a pest control visit was carried. The report says no pest activity was found.
The landlord has produced another site inspection report from 16 May 2023, which states there was no pest activity and all baits were found to be in good condition. It also found no evidence of anything that would encourage pests.

Legislations, policies and procedures

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states, it is the tenant and leaseholder’s responsibility to deal with minor mice and other pest treatment within the home (blocking holes where pests gain access). It is also the tenant or leaseholder’s responsibility to keep the property clean, in order to not attract pests.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states it is the landlord’s responsibility to deal with major infestations including rats, pigeons, pharaoh ants and cockroaches. It also says it is for the landlord to address pests that affect multiple flats, communal areas or sheltered accommodation.
It goes on to say that for emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it aims to attend within three hours and to complete/make safe the repair within 24 hours. For all non-emergency repairs it would arrange a mutually convenient appointment time and date to be attended to within 28 days.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says a formal complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and it will aim to respond at stage one within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If the complaint proceeds to stage two, it will be acknowledged within two working days and a senior manager will be assigned the complaint. They should then contact the complainant within three working days from the date of it being assigned at stage two. It aims to complete the stage two review, within 20 working days.
The Complaints Policy says it can consider discretionary compensation, and it categorises this as follows:
1. Minor impact – up to £50: Complaint has been upheld and there has been minor inconvenience or distress caused. Impact has been no more than a reasonable person could be expected to accept and the compensation is a token in acknowledgement of our responsibility. This type of payment would generally be recorded as a gesture of goodwill;.
2. Medium impact – £50 – £250: Inconvenience and/or distress has clearly been caused as a result of a failure in service. Failure to follow the Complaints Policy, to investigate the complaint or poor handling of the complaint. A repeated failure of a low impact event could result in the impact being increased to a medium impact.
3. High impact – £250 – £500: A serious failure in service has taken place. This could either be due to the severity of the event or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve the complaint.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it will not pay compensation when “damage has been caused by unforeseen failures in the structure of a building. Such damage could be claimed against building insurance and not through a compensation claim.” It also says discretionary compensation can be paid when costs are incurred as a result of a failure in service. In addition, it will usually only be paid where there has been “actual, proven financial loss sustained as a direct result of a service failure or mismanagement”.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System says when a local authority officer inspects “a dwelling they will look for any risk of harm to an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling, which results from any deficiency that can give rise to a hazard. They will judge the severity of the risk by thinking about the likelihood of an occurrence that could cause harm over the next twelve months, and the range of harms that could result.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.

Since 2020, when the issue was reported, the resident has written to the landlord many times, stressing the impact the mice infestation was having on her and her family. She has referred not only to the noise of the rodents and the mess they made, but that there have been dead mice at the property, leading to a smell being present, and that property has been damaged by the mice. The resident also wanted the landlord to reimburse her the £300 she had spent on employing a pest company to assess/treat the problem.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states, it is the tenant and leaseholder’s responsibility to deal with minor mice and other pest treatment within the home. Therefore, unless there was evidence of the mice infestation being caused by disrepair, the landlord was not obliged to reimburse the resident’s treatment costs; nor was it obligated to arranging treatment. This is something that was mentioned to the resident in January 2022; but, it would have been useful for the landlord to have mentioned this to the resident as soon as the issue was reported, to ensure her expectations were properly managed.
Despite that, the evidence shows that having been told about there being an infestation of mice at the property, the landlord did take steps to send a pest control company to the property on a number of occasions, in order to try and establish the extent of the problem. On 2 March 2021, in its stage one response, the landlord referred to a neighbouring property having issues with mice. It also said a contractor had been asked to carry out a full survey of the block and provide any necessary recommendations for proofing works which would be actioned. However, due to the mice being located in the kitchen and bathroom, the landlord initially took steps to redecorate the property, and made arrangements in May and June 2021, to replace the bathroom and kitchen. As holes/access points had been found in there, the hope was that this would prevent mice getting in to the property. This action stemmed from findings made by pest control.
The landlord had paid the resident compensation in the amount of £200, despite there being no evidence to that point, the mice infestation was caused by outstanding repair, or anything the landlord did wrong. It also took reasonable action based upon feedback from pest control visits. Therefore, up to June 2021, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took a proactive and reasonable approach in the way it handled the reports made by the resident.
In September 2021, the resident reported further issues with mice; therefore, the landlord knew at that point, that replacing the kitchen and bathroom had not stopped the problem. Although it had hoped doing work in the kitchen and bathroom would remedy the problem, it had been advised previously to carry out a survey of the block. The fact that mice were likely to be coming from other flats, was then mentioned in a report dated 6 September 2021. On 5 October 2021, in its stage two response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged it could do more to establish the root cause of the mice and said it would carry out a “full intrusive survey of the building, including all properties and communal areas to indicate entry and exit points”.
The landlord was therefore on notice that the infestation was likely to be affecting other areas in the building, or being caused by issues with the building. It had a responsibility to deal with major infestations that affected multiple flats and/or communal areas and as part of remedying the complaint, it had committed to arranging a survey of the building.
Despite the recommendations from contractors, and reminders from the resident, there is no evidence a full survey of the building was carried out. Since then, further inspections have taken place, including one on 25 March 2022, which recorded, “investigations into the other flats is required to treat the issue appropriately”. The landlord has referred to a visit taking place on 28 April 2022 following a survey in March 2022, where six bait stations were installed to the ceiling of the communal area in different locations. While an inspection was done, and bait laid, something the landlord said it would do in its 5 October 2021 response, it also said it would carry out a “full intrusive survey of the building, including all properties”; and, there is no evidence of this having been done.
Having arranged visits from specialist pest control, it was for the landlord to take on board recommendations made. There have been recommendations made to conduct wider investigations and to have the whole building surveyed, in order to try and establish how the mice were accessing the building. The landlord has failed to do what it said it would do to remedy the complaint, in order to try and resolve the pest issue. Therefore, there has been maladministration and it should arrange for a survey of the building to be carried out, and action any recommendations as a result.
The resident has said that no one has visited the property since September 2022, and there is an open drain in the bathroom and there are holes in the kitchen. If there are issues with the installation of the new bathroom and kitchen, that would amount to a new complaint, which would need to be made to the landlord in the first instance. In terms of the pest issue, although the landlord has records of pest control visits to the building, there is no evidence an inspection of the resident’s property has taken place since September 2022. This is inappropriate, bearing in mind the history of this matter and given the ongoing monitoring of communal areas at that time, and as the resident submitted a further report of infestation in November. The resident has also said that some equipment was left at her property when the last visit was made, and no one has collected it. Therefore, as well as arranging for the whole building to be surveyed for pest infestation and required repair, the landlord should arrange for someone to visit the resident’s property to collect any tools that have been left there.
Although the landlord noted how difficult it was for the resident and her family to live in the property, there is no evidence it considered the Housing Health and Safety Rating System; in terms of any risk to the resident’s health caused by the infestation. Especially as there were reports of the odour of dead mice being strong, and of dead mice in the kitchen area, droppings and urine stain on kitchen utensils.
The resident did report damage to certain items of property, as a result of the mice infestation, and on 11 October 2021, the landlord did increase its offer of compensation by £1,000, to take that in to account. In addition, the landlord did explain it could not just decant the family to another property, but it did provide details of applying for a transfer to another property once the rent arrears were cleared. The landlord’s approach here was not unreasonable as there were concerns over a pest infestation in another property. The resident had rent arrears and there was a lack of properties available, and people with higher priority need. However, bearing in mind how long this issue went on for, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to continue to consider that option, in case an appropriate property became available, for the resident and her family, to move in to.
The landlord did offer alternative properties to the resident in March and April 2022; although, it is appreciated the resident was not happy with the condition they were in and there was an issue with a property then not being available. The resident has said she is still working with the landlord, to try and find a suitable alternative property to move to.
In addition, in order to recognise the impact the infestation had on the resident, and to try and resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord has paid the resident £1,550 in compensation as well as an additional £720 towards the purchase of a new oven/cooker. The Ombudsman recognises the steps taken by the landlord, to try and put things right, and that the amount of compensation paid to date is significant. However, as the issue with mice at the property remains unresolved, and there is no evidence of the landlord responding to a further report in November 2022, it cannot be said that the compensation offered is reasonable redress, in the circumstances. This is a failing made more significant because of the history of the case and especially due to the assurances given by the landlord to carry out a full survey of the building, during the complaints procedure.
To reflect that further work is needed at the property, and the inconvenience to the resident as a result of that, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £1,000 compensation.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

The landlord failed to fully investigate the required repair of the building that may have led to a pest infestation, and did not appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of ongoing infestation in late 2022.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord should:
1. Collect any tools that have been left at the resident’s property.
2. Carry out a pest control survey of the building and all properties and provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to the resident.
3. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation, in addition to the £1,500 compensation and £720 paid towards the cost of another cooker/oven, already.
Within four weeks of the surveyor’s report being produced, carry out any repairs needed on the building, or the resident’s property, as a result of findings from the survey.