Peabody Trust (202503799)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202503799 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Peabody Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
21 April 2026 |
Background
1. The resident reported a rodent infestation affecting his property, including the garden. He asked for the landlord to carry out treatment to eradicate the rodents and for the landlord to carry out pest proofing to prevent future entry by rodents. The resident advised the landlord that his son was vulnerable as he had a disability linked to serious medical conditions, including a kidney disorder and breathing difficulties.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
5. During the complaints process, the landlord apologised and offered compensation for delays and a lack of communication in responding to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation. However, there were subsequent delays and communication failures which caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident and showed a lack of learning by the landlord. By the end of December 2025, the landlord had not yet completed all of the proofing works.
6. The landlord delayed responding to the stage 1 complaint, however, it apologised and offered fair and proportionate compensation to put things right
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 21 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,962.91 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 21 May 2026 |
|
3 |
The landlord must produce an action plan with timescales for addressing any remaining works necessary to complete the pest proofing in relation to the property. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and us with a copy of its action plan by the due date. |
No later than 21 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should re–offer the resident the £150 offered at stage 1 for complaint handling if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
28 April 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord about a serious rodent infestation at the property. He said the situation had worsened, despite pest treatments, and that the rodents had established nests in the garden. He also said he could hear rodent activity in the soil vent pipe and wall cavities at night. He emphasised that his son was vulnerable due to medical conditions and that he also had 2 other young children. He asked the landlord to carry out a full inspection to identify the entry points for the rodents. |
|
8 July 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said:
– It offered compensation of £1,712.91 which included £348 as reimbursement for the pest controller engaged by the resident.
|
|
14 July 2025 |
The resident said he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 because the issues remained unresolved. He said there was still rodent activity, despite proofing work on 1 July 2025. He said he was concerned that the stage 1 response had not mentioned the landlord’s prior knowledge of his son’s vulnerabilities, despite the resident disclosing this during his initial call to the repairs team in February 2025.
He said he wanted the landlord to produce an action plan covering all outstanding internal and external works. He also asked for clarity on how the landlord had considered the pest control report he had privately commissioned. |
|
22 August 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident contacted us to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response because it had not resolved the rodent issues. He said the landlord should have fully upheld his complaint, rather than partially upholding it, because of systemic failures and its complaint handling delays. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
7. The landlord’s pest control policy says:
- It will assess infestations of certain pests, such as rats and mice.
- It will deal with pest infestations found in the communal parts or that are present in the structure of blocks of flats, such as drains.
- For pest infestations that have originated in communal areas, it will carry out proofing works where required.
8. The resident phoned the landlord in February 2025 to report a problem with rats. The landlord raised an order on 19 February 2025 for its main contractor to arrange for a pest control subcontractor to attend. As the landlord was responsible for dealing with rats under its pest control policy, it was appropriate that it had raised an order for a pest controller to attend the property.
9. The pest controller attended within a reasonable timescale on 24 February 2025 and carried out treatment by placing bait boxes in the garden. The pest controller’s report noted that there was a vulnerable person in the property with issues relating to his immune system. The main contractor’s records state that the pest controller also attended on 10 and 25 March and 10 April 2025 to check the bait boxes. During the visit on 10 March 2025, it placed bait in a drain near the property and said it would monitor whether there was rodent activity in the drain. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the initial treatment carried out by the pest controller, including returning to check the bait boxes for rodent activity.
10. The main contractor’s records show that in February 2025 the pest controller had identified that some external proofing would help to stop the rodent activity. It said there was a hole in the front yard between the pipes and that a mixture of mesh and concrete would provide the necessary proofing. Also, during the visit on 25 March 2025 it said the drain it had previously baited needed a cap and the burrows in the garden needed to be filled with concrete.
11. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acted on these recommendations to carry out proofing. This was inappropriate as its pest control policy says that it will carry out proofing works where there are pest infestations that have originated in communal areas. In this case, the pest controller had noted on 25 March 2025 that there were rodent noises in the wall cavities, the drains and the burrows and some of the bait had been taken. Therefore, the pest controller had found evidence of rodent activity and potential entry points for rodents.
12. The resident spoke to the landlord on 4 April 2025 and said he was still seeing rats in the garden despite the bait boxes that the pest controller had placed there. He emphasised that his son had serious medical conditions and asked for a meeting to discuss the rat infestation. He requested a camera survey to check entry points and for the landlord to do a thorough investigation regarding the reported rat infestation. However, the landlord’s records state that the pest controller attended on 10 April 2025 and found that no further bait had been taken from the boxes. The main contractor therefore removed the bait boxes and closed the job. It was unreasonable that the landlord had closed the job without carrying out any proofing work, despite both its own pest controller and the resident’s pest controller recommending proofing.
13. Although the pest controller had reported that no bait was taken, the landlord was aware that no proofing had been done and therefore there was the potential for future problems with rodents. It was also aware that the resident had raised concerns about his son’s vulnerability and had asked for a meeting to discuss the reported rodent infestation. Meeting the resident before closing the job would have been an opportunity for the landlord also to have sought more information about his son’s vulnerability and discussed the impact of the infestation on the household.
14. During May 2025 the resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to report further rodent activity. He said he had seen rats in the garden and could hear rodents making noises inside the partition walls. He arranged for a private pest control contractor to carry out a survey on 12 May 2025 and sent a copy of the contractor’s report to the landlord on 15 May 2025. The report recommended internal and external proofing. However, the landlord did not act on the recommendations or carry out its own survey for proofing works until its pest control contractor attended on 25 June 2025 and surveyed the external areas. The delay in arranging the survey was unreasonable given that the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerability and it had been 6 weeks since the resident had sent the landlord a copy of the pest control report.
15. The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 July 2025, which was a week after the survey, and carried out external proofing, including fitting inlets in the manhole and blocking a redundant sewage pipe. The contractor had therefore carried out the work within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s records show that it had asked its contractor to take into account the report from the resident’s pest controller. This was reasonable as it would help to inform the proofing work carried out by the landlord’s contractor.
16. On the same day (1 July 2025) the resident told the landlord he could still hear rodent noises at night in the soil vent pipe and wall cavities and asked the landlord to carry out internal proofing. The landlord advised the resident on 8 July that the pest controller would attend on 11 July 2025 to monitor the effectiveness of the external proofing work. It said that if the proofing had not eliminated the issues, it would prepare a programme of internal proofing works. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s advice to check the effectiveness of the external proofing before carrying out intrusive internal proofing.
17. The pest controller appropriately attended on 11 July 2025 to check the effectiveness of the external proofing and reported that no additional proofing was needed. However, during the remainder of July 2025, the resident continued to report concerns that no internal proofing had been arranged and we have not seen any evidence that the landlord discussed the pest controller’s findings with the resident until a phone call with him on 28 July 2025. The lack of communication from the landlord was unreasonable as the resident had been waiting for information about his request for internal proofing.
18. The resident continued to report hearing noises from rodents in the soil vent pipe and the wall cavities and therefore the landlord’s main contractor and its pest controller attended on 7 August 2025. This was reasonable as the resident had continued to report concerns and the landlord knew that his son was vulnerable.
19. The contractor’s report from its visit on 7 August 2025 said that it had checked under the kitchen units and found no rodent activity. It found an open telephone duct near the property and filled it with fibreglass wool as a precaution. It checked the manholes and confirmed the inlets it had previously installed were functioning properly. It was reasonable that the contractor had checked the previous external proofing carried out and had carried out some internal checks as the resident had continued to report hearing noises from rodents.
20. During the visit on 7 August 2025, the contractor said there appeared to be a main drain running under the property that belonged to the water utility company. The contractor said it was possible that rodents were using the drain. The landlord acted reasonably in contacting the water company which attended on 25 September 2025. The water company confirmed that the landlord was responsible for any drainage and pipes under the property. However, it was unreasonable that it took over a month for the landlord to contact the water company following the contractor’s recommendation on 7 August 2025. The landlord was aware that the resident continued to be distressed about rodent activity.
21. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 and 22 September 2025 to say the rodent activity had increased significantly and there was a foul smell in the kitchen from decomposing rodents. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended again on 26 September 2025 and its report said it did not find any evidence of pests in the kitchen, however, there were new burrows in the garden. It confirmed that proofing was needed, including to disused drainage under the property. It also found a damaged air brick which it covered with an air vent cover.
22. It was reasonable that the landlord had arranged a further pest control inspection immediately following the water company’s visit. This enabled the pest controller to check for new rodent activity and to take immediate proofing action.
23. The local council wrote to the landlord on 2 October 2025 to confirm that a member of its public health team had attended on 24 September 2025 and found rat burrows in the garden. It requested details of the landlord’s plans for proofing. The landlord’s main contractor sent it a comprehensive scope of works on 6 November 2025 and this was also copied to the resident.
24. It was unreasonable that 6 weeks after the visit by the water company and the pest controller recommending proofing of the disused drainage, the landlord had not yet approved the scope of works and agreed a start date. During this time, the resident had written to the landlord expressing his concerns about the deteriorating position regarding the reported rodent infestation and his concerns about the vulnerability of his children. The local council’s public health team had also written to the landlord to emphasise the need for a plan for carrying out the proposed works.
25. The landlord’s surveyor attended a joint inspection of the property with the main contractor and pest controller on 26 November 2025 to produce an action plan for the required proofing works. The landlord’s records show that on 16 December 2025 it reasonably carried out various works including:
- Excavating and filling a large void under the patio with high-strength concrete and wire mesh.
- Proofing all gaps around the doors and windows using wire mesh followed by mastic sealant.
- Excavating the soft area at the bottom of the garden to check for rodent activity. (It found no evidence of rodents nesting there).
- Removing the back of the kitchen cabinets and cutting a hole to check the soil pipe area (it found no evidence of rodent activity using a camera).
26. However, the landlord’s records also show that there were still extensive works outstanding to the patio at the end of December 2025 and the landlord had not provided the resident with a clear plan with timescales for completing the work. Given that a joint inspection had taken place on 26 November 2025, it was unreasonable that by the end of December 2025 the landlord had not provided the resident with a clear plan for completing the work. We have not investigated the events beyond the end of December 2025 because based on the extent and reliability of the evidence seen we do not consider it fair and reasonable to do so.
27. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment that took his household’s circumstances into account. The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that his older son had a disability due to serious medical conditions, including a kidney disorder and breathing difficulties. Whilst we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, we would expect the landlord to have considered the potential increased risks to the resident’s son and other members of the household.
28. Although the landlord’s pest controller carried out visual risk assessments during its various visits, their reports show that these were largely to assess environmental factors that might increase the risk of pest activity occurring. We have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out its own risk assessment which considered the circumstances of the family and, for example, considered the risks to the family of remaining in the property. This was unreasonable given the vulnerability of the resident’s family members, particularly his eldest son. Our guidance on pests, which is available on our website says landlords should conduct a risk assessment of the situation to assess whether it is appropriate to move the resident on a temporary basis – this should take into account the resident’s circumstances.
29. Another element of the resident’s complaint was about the lack of action by its Neighbourhood Housing manager. In our view, this was not adequately addressed during the complaints process and we have not seen any evidence that the landlord properly investigated the resident’s concerns or identified any learning in relation to this matter.
30. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation:
- The landlord did not act on the recommendations for proofing made by its pest controller in February and March 2025.
- The landlord closed the pest control job in April 2025 without carrying out proofing work and without advising the resident, despite the resident reporting that he had continued to see rats in the garden.
- There was a delay in the landlord arranging a survey to identify proofing after the resident had forwarded a pest control report that he had commissioned.
- There was a delay in the landlord contacting the water company to check the drains after its contractor recommended this.
- There was a delay in the landlord approving the works to proof the disused drains under the property, despite the resident and the local council chasing the landlord.
- By the end of December 2025, there were still outstanding proofing works needed to the patio area and the landlord had not provided the resident with a clear plan for completing the work.
- The landlord did not properly investigate the resident’s concerns about the Neighbourhood Housing Manager’s initial handling of matters.
- During the period investigated, there was a lack of communication with the resident to discuss the findings of its pest controller and the next steps. This meant that the resident (and the local council) had to chase the landlord for updates.
- Although the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities, we have not seen evidence that it produced a risk assessment or acted with sufficient urgency to address the reported rodent infestations.
31. We understand that it can sometimes take multiple attempts to address reports of pest infestations, but it is important to keep the resident updated during this time and to manage expectations by being clear about timescales for carrying out works. In this case, the resident requested a comprehensive action plan with timescales on several occasions, however, we have not seen evidence that the landlord provided this.
32. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
33. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 1 response to acknowledge the delays and communication failures that occurred despite the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son. It also acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the issue had not yet been resolved and this was causing the resident distress. It sought to put things right by apologising for the failings and by offering compensation.
34. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that as a result of the complaint it had learned the importance of promptly identifying health vulnerabilities and escalating such cases without delay. However, the evidence shows that there were further delays after the stage 1 response was sent on 8 July 2025. There were also subsequent failures in communications, even though the landlord had apologised for these at stage 1. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not identify any further learning and therefore we have concluded that the landlord did not use its complaints to genuinely learn from its failings.
35. In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord offered £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the disruption and service failure. It also offered £564.91, which was equivalent to 20% of the rent from 20 March to 30 June 2025. The landlord had therefore offered compensation of £1,214.91 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its failings. The landlord also reimbursed the resident the £348 he had paid for the private pest controller. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it considered the amount offered to have been fair.
36. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may offer “£1,000 plus” in cases where there has been serious disruption and a service failure has occurred which was significant in terms of the event itself and/or its duration, causing serious short- or long-term impact”. In this case, given the significant distress caused to the resident, particularly because of his son’s vulnerability, we consider it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this by using the highest scale in its policy. Therefore, at the time of its stage 2 response, we consider the landlord had made a fair offer of compensation, along with its apology and reimbursement of the resident’s pest control costs. However, we have not made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ because:
- There were further delays and communication issues following the landlord’s stage 2 response, which caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident. There was also a lack of learning demonstrated by the landlord.
- The issues had not been fully resolved at the end of the period we have investigated (December 2025) and the landlord had not provided the resident with a clear plan for completing the work.
37. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration, which takes into account that the landlord made some attempt to put things right by offering compensation and by undertaking some of the proofing works. The resident wrote to us in February 2026 to say that although the work had largely been completed there was still some outstanding work. We have therefore ordered the landlord to produce a timed action plan to show how it will resolve any outstanding matters.
38. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident of £400 to cover the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the delays and lack of communication from the period after the stage 2 reply to December 2025. The sum takes into account the action taken by the landlord during this period, including the proofing work carried out in December 2025. The total compensation we have ordered the landlord to pay for distress and inconvenience is therefore £1,614.91, which is the £400 we have ordered plus the £1,214.91 already offered by the landlord. This sum is in line with our compensation guidance where there was an ongoing failure which adversely affected the resident. In addition, we have ordered the landlord to pay the £348 to reimburse the resident for the pest control survey he arranged, which the landlord had already agreed to pay.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
39. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of the escalation request and responses are sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident and a timeframe for when it will send the response. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
40. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged it within an appropriate timescale on 1 May 2025. It then sent its stage 1 response on 8 July 2025, which was 46 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord had advised the resident in the initial acknowledgement that the response would take up to 20 working days and had then written to the resident on 23 May and 24 and 25 June 2025 to apologise for the delay in replying. However, the landlord did not advise the resident of our contact details so that he could approach us if he wanted to.
41. The time taken by the landlord to respond to the stage 1 complaint and its failure to provide our contact details were inappropriate and contrary to our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The Code says that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days but may extend this by up to 10 working days. It adds that any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason and says when a landlord informs a resident about an extension to these timescales, it must provide our contact details.
42. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 14 July 2025 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 21 July 2025. It then sent its stage 2 response on 22 August 2025, which was 24 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore took longer to reply than its published 20-working day timescale. However, it had spoken to the resident on 9 August 2025 to say that it would respond by 20 August 2025 and had spoken to him on 20 August 2025 to extend the timescale to 21 August 2025. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it then sent its response on 22 August 2025, which was a day later than agreed.
43. Overall, there was a delay in the landlord responding to the stage 1 complaint and although it extended the timescale for responding, it did not advise the resident of our details in case he wanted to approach us.
44. The landlord used its stage 1 reply to apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint and to offer compensation of £150 for the additional time and trouble involved in the resident chasing a response to his complaint. We have considered the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings at stage 1, particularly in relation to the additional time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing his complaint. We have concluded that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation were fair and proportionate redress to put things right. We have therefore made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Learning
45. Although the landlord identified some learning in its stage 1 response, there were subsequent delays and a lack of communication. This suggests a lack of genuine learning by the landlord.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
46. We have not seen any documents to show that the landlord carried out a thorough risk assessment to consider the risks associated with the family remaining in the property while works were pending. It is important that any risk assessments are documented and shared with the resident.
Communication
47. The landlord’s communication was poor. There were various visits by a pest control contractor and the landlord’s main contractor, however, the landlord did not proactively contact the resident to advise him of the outcome of the visits or provide a plan for the next steps. It was therefore left to the resident to chase the landlord for updates.