Southern Housing (202451979)

Background

1. The resident moved into the ground floor property in March 2010 and has experienced issues with rats since 2017. The resident said she has been reporting these issues with the landlord as they occurred, before raising a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of rats.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats.

4. The landlord failed to implement the remedial measures recommended by its experts or satisfy itself it had taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the issue with rats in 2023. While the landlord demonstrated that its service had improved, its previous failures meant the resident lived with the issues for a significant period.
5. While it was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered compensation, this did not go far enough to recognise the distress caused to the resident and her family.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the Code and its policy and procedures. However, its complaint handling lacked empathy at stage 1 of its investigation. The landlord did, however, demonstrate learning from this and offered an apology and compensation, which we find was proportionate for the failures identified in this investigation, and in line with our guidelines.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate.

7. The resident told us that this situation affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury she considers has been caused by the landlord.
8. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

What we did investigate

9. The resident said she had been reporting issues with rats since 2017 and there is evidence that the resident has used the landlord’s complaint process to address this issue previously.
10. However, in respect of this case, the landlord limited the scope of its investigation to cover the period from March 2023 to 18 March 2025, when it issued its stage 2 response. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will accept complaints made within 12 months of the issue occurring, or of the resident becoming aware of the issue. Therefore, it was positive that the landlord extended the period of its investigation to go back to March 2023.
11. The resident is also aware that we have investigated the landlord’s response during the same period. However, as the landlord made commitments to contact the resident within 10 working days to ensure there had been no further issues in her home and to provide details of home moves, we have extended the scope of our investigation to 1 April 2025 to assess whether this was completed. Any mention of matters outside of these dates is to provide context only.
12. The landlord does not have a specific pest control policy and its website states “Unless your tenancy agreement or lease says otherwise, it’s your responsibility to remove pests from your home.” However, landlords are required to keep properties free from serious hazardsunder the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidelines.Pests, including rats are a category of prescribed hazard in recognition that an infestation can spread disease and present a risk to health.
13. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not provide specific timescales for pest control. However, its contractors note that its response is expected on a routine basis, which in line with its responsive repairs policy would be 20 working days.
14. On 10 March 2023 the resident reported rats in and around the property. The evidence shows that the landlord appointed its contractor, who attended the same day. The contractor completed a course of action over 3 visits, 10, 17 and 24 March 2023.
15. During this time the contractor identified and closed burrows and recommended that to help the proofing work, that foliage was removed and more stones were laid and that bait points were placed around the building as a preventative measure. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response, that these recommendations had not been implemented and were likely to have caused recurrent issues with rats.
16. On 20 November 2023 the resident reported rats entering the block and her home. The landlord has provided evidence that it appointed the services of its contractor and that it started work on the same day. However, it has not provided any record of what measures were taken at that time. We are, therefore, unable to assess if the actions taken were reasonable or if the landlord followed any recommendations at that time.
17. On 31 May 2024 the resident reported that the building had a major rat problem and said there were numerous holes around the base of the building. The landlord has provided evidence that it appointed the services of its contractor and that it started work on this the following day. However, the only evidence provided was that of the final visit, in which the contractor reported that the bait had remained untouched, indicating that the activity around the block had stopped. While we can see that there were no recommendations made on this final visit, we are unable to assess if the actions taken during this period were reasonable.
18. On 13 January 2025 the resident reported that the situation with the rats was now unliveable. The landlord instructed its contractor, and they attended the next day.
19. Inside the resident’s property (internally), the contractor discovered an entry point and signs of activity and placed a bait box and tracking dust to monitor activity as an immediate measure. Around the block (externally), the contractor reported that some of the proofing measures, already in place, had been compromised and required repair to prevent entry. They recommended repairs to the proofing mesh and the addition of more stones. It also identified there was a missing brick, exposing the cavity of the building, which required repair.
20. The evidence shows that the landlord’s maintenance surveyor attended on 15 January 2025 and recorded that the contractor’s recommended repairs had been completed, and stones had been laid that day. Further repairs and stones were recorded as being completed on 21 January 2025. These actions were completed in line with the timescales of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy of a routine repair.
21. The evidence also shows that following another report on 19 January 2025 about uncollected rubbish and how this facilitated the breeding of the rats, that a large quantity of rubbish and old furniture was removed from the building on 23 January 2025. These actions were completed in line with the timescales of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy of a routine repair.
22. The contractor returned on 21 January 2023. Internally, they reported there was no evidence of further activity. However, they recommended that weld mesh was fitted under the kitchen cupboards to block this access point as they suspected that the external measures may have blocked any rodent activity in the building. The resident declined this measure. Externally, they reported that the bait stations were untouched and that a drone inspection had shown no evidence of rats on the roof of the building.
23. Despite the contractor’s findings, the resident installed CCTV in her kitchen. This captured footage of a rat within the property overnight, which she sent to the landlord.
24. The contractor returned the next day. Internally, they installed the weld mesh, offered the previous day, as a temporary proofing measure. Additionally, they recommended that the kitchen cupboards were removed and 6mm mesh or metal plates installed around wall/floor junctions to permanently deny rodent access. The resident declined this measure. They also noted a chewed wire under the kitchen cupboards required an urgent repair but recorded that to avoid causing alarm, they had not informed the resident. Externally, they baited a void at the gas meters and recommended that the landlord implement a proactive baiting system across the estate to serve as a first line of defence against recurring rodent issues.
25. The chewed wire was reported and made safe the following day. During its investigation, the landlord identified that its contractor ought to have reported this as an emergency repair but had failed to do so. It was, therefore, appropriate that it used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise and offer compensation for this.
26. The landlord’s contractor completed its final visit on 28 January 2025 and confirmed that externally all rodent proofing measures had been implemented. It gave the following recommendations:
    1. Keep foliage behind the block trimmed back.
    2. Ensure stone levels remain adequate to fully cover the mesh.
    3. Implement a proactive pest management and baiting contract to deter any foraging rats.
    4. Install 6mm weld mesh under all cupboards in Flat 1’s kitchen as an additional precaution.
27. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its expert contractor, and it was reasonable for it to conclude that the situation was resolved at that time. That being said, the resident did not agree with the contractor’s findings and appointed her own contractor.
28. While we have not seen evidence of their findings, the resident reported that her contractor had felt the rats may have been accessing the property through the drains. It was, therefore, positive that the landlord raised a request for a drain survey to be completed. The survey was completed on 26 March 2025. This found no evidence of rodent activity.
29. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the resident to check the situation with the rats in the property or provide details about the home move policy, within the 10 working days it committed to in its stage 2 response.
30. We are also aware that soon after these remedial works the resident reported further issues with rats and that she has been in contact with the landlord to resolve theseissues. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters after 1 April 2025, she can raise a new complaint with the landlord to allow it to consider this in its internal complaint process.
31. Overall, this investigation has identified a number of failings in the handling of the residents reports of rats between 10 March 2023 and 1 April 2025. Where there are failings by a landlord, we will consider what it did to put things right. In this case the landlord offered an apology and compensation as redress.
32. The resident and her children lived with reoccurring rat issues for a significant period. During this time the resident worried about the effect the issue had on her families’ physical and mental well being and had the inconvenience of having to report the issues with multiple repair visits required to inspect and resolve the issues. This may have been avoided had the landlord implemented the recommended work required in 2023.
33. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £600 to £1,000 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that significantly affected the resident.
34. The landlord awarded £705 compensation for its failures in the handling of the resident’s reports of rats. The compensation offered was at the lower end of that range and did not go far enough to put things right to reflect the impact on the resident and her family, given their vulnerabilities and significant effort.

35. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
36. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
37. The resident raised her initial complaint on 20 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged, and issued its response to this, in line with the timescales of the Code.
38. The landlord’s stage 1 response summarised the history of the resident’s reports from March 2023. In line with the Code, and its own complaint policy, a landlord can limit its investigation to consider the service it provided in the 12 months leading to the complaint; therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to take this position.
39. However, it was a shortcoming of the landlord not to have explained this to the resident at the earliest opportunity. Not doing so meant the resident expressed further frustration in her escalation request that not all her reports had been included in its stage 1 response. Had the landlord explained its position at stage 1 this additional frustration could have been avoided.
40. The landlord did, however, acknowledge this in its stage 2 response and offered £50 for the “distress caused by not showing empathy in the stage 1 response and being unclear on the history of the issues experienced”.
41. The resident raised her escalation request on 11 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged, and issued its response to this, in line with the timescales of the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. It is essential that landlords keep accurate and clear records so that it can monitor a repair effectively. The landlord has not provided comprehensive repair records. And in respect of the rat issues, it appears to have relied on those of its contractor throughout its complaint investigation.
43. The lack of independent records in this case may have made it more difficult for the landlord to identify or monitor the overall number of reports submitted from the resident’s block, and manage its contract with the contractor, which may have contributed to delays in fully resolving the issue for the resident and her neighbours.

Communication

44. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s communication throughout the complaint. She referenced feeling like she was being dismissed or lied to about the extent of the issue. This is likely to have resulted in the resident losing trust in the landlord and prevented the landlord from understanding the resident’s lived experience and learning how it could have adopted a more thorough or joined up approach to resolve the issues.