Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202501446)

Decision
Case ID	202501446
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Richmond Housing Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about pests in her flat and communal areas. She said they were in other flats in the block, and the landlord had not dealt with the cause. She was concerned about the effect the pests could have on the health of her young children. She moved out of the flat in September 2025 through a managed transfer.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her reports of pests and its communication about rubbish in communal areas.
We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was reasonable redress in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s:
1. Reports of pests and its communication about rubbish in communal areas.
2. Complaint.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

It is unclear whether the landlord followed up its contractor’s recommendations and because of this it did not deal effectively with the reports of pests. It also did not give effective advice to residents on pests. However, because of the relatively short period between the resident’s first report and the landlord’s final complaint response, the compensation offered and apology were reasonable.
The landlord accepted and apologised for failings in its complaint handling. It also offered a reasonable amount of compensation and said it would re-train staff.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
We recommend the landlord reoffers the £720 compensation it offered if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord makes this payment.
We recommend the landlord reviews its communications for contacting residents in blocks of flats about pest infestations when there is evidence that several properties are affected.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 December 2024	The resident told the landlord that there were mice and rats around the communal bins. She said a mouse had run across her kitchen floor that day and she was concerned about the safety of her children. The landlord’s pest control contractor visited her home on 2 January 2025.
14 January 2025	The resident complained about how the landlord had dealt with her reports of pests. She said after the contractor visited on 2 January 2025, a mouse ran across the floor in her flat, but it told her it would not return until 16 January 2025.
30 January 2025	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said although it had sent pest control to several properties, it had not asked its contractor to look at communal areas. It said it had now asked it to visit all affected properties and the communal areas. It apologised for the level of service and upset caused and offered £120 compensation.
30 January 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said its response did not deal with her concerns. She wanted to know why it had not done anything to stop residents leaving rubbish in communal areas. On 25 February 2025, she told the landlord she wanted an infestation of cockroaches added to her complaint
7 March 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted its complaint response did not meet its standards. It said it had asked its contractor to inspect communal areas and her flat. On rubbish in communal areas, it said it would send a letter to all residents. It apologised for the distress caused and offered £500 compensation, which included £150 for a damaged baby’s cot. The resident replied and asked it to increase the payment for the cot by £100, which it agreed to.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When she escalated her complaint to us, the resident said she was unhappy with the time taken to resolve the pest problems. She wanted the pests dealt with, communication to residents about rubbish in communal areas, and reimbursement for the cost of the cot.

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	How the landlord dealt with reports of pests and its communication about rubbish in communal areas
Finding	Reasonable redress

Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords must ensure the property is safe, healthy, and free from pests. The landlord has provided us with information showing it has responsibility for dealing with reports of rats and mice in flats and communal areas, and reports of cockroaches in communal areas.
We have not seen a document showing the landlord’s timescale for responding to reports of pests that are its responsibility. Its repairs policy says it will deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours, and general repairs within 10 working days. It will deal with other repairs in 20 working days. Based on this, it is our view that it would be reasonable for it to respond to reports of pests that are its responsibility within 10 working days.
The resident first reported a mouse in her flat to the landlord’s out of hours service on 30 December 2024. She said it told her to call back during office hours the next day. It is our view that this was reasonable as the landlord would not usually class a report of a mouse as an emergency.
The resident called the landlord again on 31 December 2024. Because of her distress and her concerns about an effect on her children’s health, it arranged an appointment for 2 January 2025. At the appointment, the pest control contractor found “a small amount of mouse droppings”. It said the level of pest activity was “very low”. It placed bait stations and applied tracking dust. It told the resident it would return in 2 weeks. It also found the hygiene standard around the communal bin area was “very poor” and said the landlord needed to clear it to deter pest activity.
We have found that this was a positive and reasonable response from the landlord to the resident’s report. This is because it attended the next working day due to her concerns and took proportionate action in response to the evidence it found. It said it would return in 2 weeks, which is in line with usual practice for a report of pests.
The resident called the landlord on 3 January 2025 to say she saw a mouse in her home after the contractor had left. She said she called the out of hours service on 2 January 2025, but it told her it could do nothing. She said because of this she left her home with her children and slept at a relative’s home. The landlord’s records said the resident was upset. In response it arranged to move her to a hotel over the weekend.
The landlord’s records on 6 January 2025 noted that the resident did not want to move back to her flat because she was “scared” and wanted the hotel stay extended. The landlord told her its contractor said it was safe for her to move back. From the evidence, it is unclear what the landlord did between the 3 and 6 January 2025 to change the conditions in the property. We accept the contractor found a low level of pest activity and that landlords need to make decisions related to costs.
The resident raised further concerns about pests with the landlord on 9, 12, and 13 January 2025. She said there were mouse infestations in other flats, and she was traumatised from seeing mice in the bedrooms, kitchen, and bathroom. She referred to the effect on her daughter’s autism and said she had spent nearly £100 on traps and cleaning products. She said she was not eating at home, and her children could not play on the floor because of mouse droppings.
On 14 January 2025 the resident complained about the landlord’s response since her report on 30 December 2024. She said she did not feel safe going back to her flat after staying in the hotel, but it told her it could do nothing until the visit on 16 January 2025.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents in the block on 14 January 2025 about waste in the communal areas. It asked residents to put rubbish in the bins to stop pests from being attracted to the area.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s home on 16 January 2025. It found no evidence of mouse activity in her flat. In the communal area it noted the landlord had removed rubbish on the street and had tidied the bin store but there was still some debris. It recommended further cleaning.
In its complaint response on 30 January 2025, the landlord said it had sent its contractor to several properties in the block but had not asked it to look at the communal areas. It said it had now asked its contractor to visit all affected flats and the outside communal areas. It said it was sorry for the level of service and upset caused and offered £100 compensation for the delay to the treatment.
We have found it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for the short delay between the first report on 30 December 2024 and its complaint response on 30 January 2025. However, the landlord said its contractor had not visited communal areas, which the evidence shows was not the case.
In her request to escalate the complaint on 30 January 2025, the resident said it was not true that the pest control contractor had not looked at communal areas. She wanted to know why it had not acted to stop residents leaving rubbish in communal areas. She said the compensation offer was insulting considering the trauma and disturbance to her children. She said it had not explained why it moved her to a hotel and then put her back into the same conditions. She said mice had damaged her son’s cot, which she now had to replace. She said she had a second visit, but pest control told her it would not be back as the landlord had only ordered 2 visits.
On 3 February 2025 the contractor visited the resident’s flat for a third time. It told the landlord it had done a proofing quote for the flat to try and solve the problem. However, it said the block had a problem as “multiple flats” had reported mice. It recommended treatment of the whole block with proofing to block holes. We have not seen evidence of how the landlord responded to this recommendation.
The resident told the landlord on 25 February that she had a cockroach infestation in her flat. She said it was not “providing suitable living conditions”. It arranged an inspection for 6 March 2025. This found no visible evidence of cockroaches, but the contractor treated the flat with insecticide. It is our view that this was a reasonable response.
In its final complaint response on 7 March 2025, the landlord said it had raised a new work order for its contractor to inspect communal areas 3 times during February and March 2025. It said it had also asked the contractor to visit her flat. It apologised for the upset and distress caused and accepted its service should have been better. On rubbish in communal areas, it said it would write to all residents. It said as a gesture of goodwill it would offer £150 compensation for a replacement cot. It also offered £150 for inconvenience and distress caused and £100 for time and trouble. Following representations from the resident, it increased the offer for the cot to £250.
Following the final response the landlord visited the resident’s flat and did proofing work in the kitchen, bathroom, and storage cupboard. It inspected bait boxes and tracking dust for activity and found no bait taken but movements in the tracking dust. On 11 March 2025, the landlord wrote to residents about leaving rubbish in the communal areas, which it said could attract vermin. It asked residents to dispose of rubbish in the correct bins.
We have seen the landlord’s contractor did inspections during April and May 2025 because of further reports of pests. It wrote to residents about rubbish in the communal area in May 2025. In June 2025, following an inspection of drains, the contractor recommended a drain blocker to stop rodents entering the building. On 28 July 2025 it told the resident that due to repeat sightings of cockroaches, it had asked its contractor to do structural baiting of the block.
In February 2026 the resident told us that although she had moved she was aware that other residents had made complaints about pests in the block. She said the landlord sent letters about the use of communal bins but did not ask residents to report mice in their flats. She said the landlord should have taken a more proactive approach as there were vulnerable people living in the flats. She said the landlord should have dealt with the cause rather than dealing with individual reports.
Overall, we have found the landlord responded in a reasonable time and way to the resident’s individual reports of pests. This is because it arranged appointments within a reasonable time and appears to have done proportionate treatments in the resident’s flat. It also considered the problem in the communal areas and put bait boxes in them. However, we have seen that the contractor recommended wider proofing work in the block on 3 February 2025. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord followed up on that recommendation. Because of this, it is our view that the landlord did not deal effectively with the resident’s reports of pests.
On communication to residents about rubbish in communal areas, we have seen the landlord wrote to residents several times about this and the risk of vermin. However, it did not give advice to residents about how to reduce risks of pest infestation in their flats and what to do if they saw a pest. Because of this, it is our view that there was ineffective communication on this issue.
In her complaint, the resident explained the effect the pests had on her and her children and the concerns she had about their health. She also said mice had damaged her son’s cot and wanted compensation for this. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered £600 compensation. We have considered the time between the resident’s first report of pests on 30 December 2024 and the landlord’s final response on 7 March 2025. Because of the relatively short period, we have found the compensation and apology were reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained on 14 January 2025 about how the landlord had dealt with her reports of pests. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 January 2025 and sent its complaint response on 30 January 2025. In its response it offered £20 for the delay in responding. It is our view that this was reasonable for a short delay.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 30 January 2025. She said it had sent a general response to her and her neighbours. She said it had not addressed her specific complaints, and its response lacked personalisation and empathy.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation on 7 February 2025 and sent its final response on 7 March 2025. In its response the landlord apologised for not dealing with the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response. It accepted it did not meet its standards and expectations. It said it would re-train staff on complaint handling. It offered additional compensation of £100 for complaint handling failures.
Overall, we have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handing. This is because it accepted its failings and apologised for these. It also offered a reasonable amount of compensation and said it would re-train staff. Without these actions we would have found service failure.

Learning

The landlord should make sure that it is clear on whether compensation offered at stage 2 is in addition to or includes that offered at stage 1.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We found the landlord’s record keeping was lacking on several occasions, such as in the follow-up to the contractor’s recommendation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

Th landlord could have been more proactive in its communication with residents about the pest problem in the block. This is particularly important in circumstances when there are residents with vulnerabilities.