Southern Housing Group Limited (202001367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001367

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 November 2021

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 is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a rat infestation.
2. The landlord’s delays in its complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a three bedroom house with a garden and garage. The tenancy started in May 2008.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters, external pipes, boundary walls and fences for which it is responsible.
Under the repair policy, the landlord will respond to repair requests from tenants in accordance with target response times (which vary according to priority and are not specified beyond emergency 24 hour repairs). The policy states that the landlord aims to complete “all other repairs as quickly as possible and at a time that suits you”. The landlord is expected to respond to repairs within a reasonable timeframe (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).
Under the home management policy, the landlord will provide pest management services where pests represent a risk to health or safety (such as “high risk” pests including rats and mice). The procedure involves:
1. A visit by a pest contractor to the property to assess the problem (after establishing that the pest is one it will treat).
2. If the contractor finds that the infestation presents a clear risk to health or safety then treatment should be carried out without delay.
3. To avoid repeat infestations, the contractor must carry out proofing work as part of the treatment service.
4. Where the pest is gaining access because of structural or repair issues, the contractor should advise the contract manager to ensure necessary repairs. Emphasis should be placed on blocking holes and gaps connecting homes with neighbouring properties, communal and external areas.
5. In respect of multiple property infestations, the contract manager will liaise with the landlord over the need for a thorough programme of treatment, and the landlord will arrange block or estate wide communication informing tenants of the treatment and reminding them of their responsibility to adhere to estate regulations.
6. If the communal infestation is serious and involves rats, the landlord has an obligation to inform the local authority (who may be able to assist by treating areas for which they are responsible). The area service manager will make a decision over whether or not to inform the local authority.
Under the complaint policy, complaints can be made in a number of ways and within a reasonable timeframe (about matters which occurred within 6 months). If the problem is a recurring issue, then the landlord will consider older reports as background to the complaint. The policy sets out the landlord’s process:
1. An informal complaint which it would try to resolve “there and then” within 10 working days. If this is not possible the landlord will contact the resident and give the option of escalating the complaint to stage one.
2. A stage one complaint will be dealt with by a specific team who will contact the resident within 1 working day of the report (unless they have already spoken to the resident at the time they made their complaint). The team will seek to establish the complaint details and outcome sought. It will respond at stage one within 10 working days (or longer with notice).
3. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they may escalate the complaint within 20 working days. At stage two, there are three options: compensation review, senior manager review or complaint review panel. The landlord will assess which option is appropriate.
4. In respect of a complaint review panel, this involves a senior manager and two residents from its resident steering panel who will consider how the landlord dealt with the issue and complaint. It aims to respond within 20 working days of the escalation request or longer with notice. The outcome letter that is sent to the resident following the conclusion of the stage two investigation will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The report below is anonymised and does not specify job titles or roles. The landlord’s staff are referred to generally. The landlord has communicated with several different contractors, including maintenance and pest control. They are both referred to as ‘contractors’ or specified as ‘pest contractor’ or ‘maintenance contractor’. The actions or omissions of the contractors are taken as the landlord’s actions, as the landlord is ultimately responsible for providing the service to the resident.
The resident’s neighbour, who occupies the house next door to the resident and whose property is the suspected source of the rats, is referred to as ‘the neighbour’. The neighbour’s garden has been acknowledged by both the landlord and resident as being overcrowded with items.

Summary of events

The resident referred to reports which he made to the landlord about rats from several years ago, such as in 2017 and 2018. The landlord’s complaint summary also referred to the resident’s report of rats in 2018 and said that it had arranged baiting in response to this. However, these historic reports and the landlord’s response are not within the scope of this investigation.
The scope of this investigation is from 2019 (when the resident evidenced that he raised a formal complaint) until March 2021 (when the resident reported that the repairs which were agreed under the landlord’s resolution to the complaint remained outstanding).
In May 2019, the resident emailed the landlord about a separate matter and referenced the ongoing rat problem. At the time, the landlord replied and asked for further information. The resident told the landlord that this had been ongoing for 3 years and he had shown a housing officer video/photographs of the rat problem and the damage to the dividing fence. The landlord said that the rats were the responsibility of residents; it said it would ask the neighbour to keep their garden to a standard but that this was “down to them” (17 May 2019).
In October and November 2019 the resident emailed the landlord about the ongoing rat problem. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time that he had experienced the problem for and provided details about how many rats he had killed. The landlord said that it passed the case to its solicitors and asked the resident for copies of the photographs of the rats. The file notes indicate that in November 2019 the landlord sent photographs and a copy of the neighbour’s tenancy to the solicitor.
The landlord then updated the resident on 3 February 2020: it said that the solicitor’s letter had been sent to the neighbour with a deadline by which the garden had to be cleaned, and it would visit the resident that day to check if this was complete.
On 12 February 2020 the landlord said that it visited the resident and took photographs (of the neighbour’s garden) for the solicitors. Then, on 12 February 2020, the landlord said that it issued a Notice of Intention to Seek Possession to the neighbour.
On 8 April 2020 the landlord agreed to report the neighbour to Environmental Health about a suspected drain issue which was giving rats access to the garden. The landlord’s report to Environmental Health and their response has not been seen by the Ombudsman.
On 20 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord on several occasions:
1. He asked it to escalate his complaint. The resident said that the situation had been going on for years, and the only resolution he had seen was that some of the rubbish in the neighbour’s garden had been cleared.
2. The resident said that the neighbour’s garden still contained rubbish with items stacked up against the dividing fence and he shared his frustration at the length of time that he was left to deal with the situation and his attempts and expenses in managing the pest himself.
3. The resident explained that he spent years emailing the landlord and incurred expenses for things like rat traps, poison and cleaning, while dealing with his personal health issues. He explained that he could not leave the garden door open, despite the hot weather.
4. The resident forwarded further images and asked for this to be sent to the relevant staff. He explained that he was “overrun” with rats and requested that the landlord urgently put him in contact with senior staff, as the time taken to resolve the issue over 3 years was “ridiculous”.
The landlord responded on the same day and apologised for the ongoing problem. It acknowledged the formal complaint at stage one and said that it would provide a response. The landlord internally said that it asked for a contractor to inspect the issue onsite and it also considered getting advice from its legal representative who issued a letter to the neighbour in the past about clearing the garden, which was still not clean (20 May 2020).
On 21 May 2020 the resident asked the landlord why his complaint was a stage one complaint when he asked for an escalation and pointed the landlord to “previous emails call logs etc” to find years of complaints from him about the rats. He reiterated that he sought an escalation of the matter.
The landlord said that it did not have a complaint previously raised about the issue and so this was now logged at stage one. It also provided details of the complaint process. The resident replied and sent the landlord copies of his historic emails about the rat problem from 2019 about the rats. This included:
1. An email dated 23 April 2019 about dog barking and a rat infestation.
2. An email dated 1 August 2019 about ASB and a rat problem; the resident said that the fence was chewed and tunnelled under. He explained the extent of the rat problem and also told the landlord that he was disabled and that the nuisance was affecting his health.
3. An email dated 11 October 2019 about rats in the garden which were coming through holes in the dividing fence for the last 6 months. The resident referred to a video from 2018 and invited the landlord to view this. The resident complained about the length of time that this had been ongoing without resolution and the landlord’s lack of action against the neighbour in enforcing the tenancy (due to the condition of the neighbour’s garden).
4. An update from the resident dated 20 November 2019 in which he told the landlord of the amount of rats he had killed in the morning and the lack of action with the neighbour.
5. An email forwarded to the landlord on 22 October 2019. This was a copy of the resident’s email to the local authority’s Environmental Health Service dated 1 August 2019 in which he explained he was disabled, and he described the extent of the problem and impact (including the damage to the dividing fence and the presence of rats in the resident’s home). He referred to the lack of action by the landlord and Environmental Health in response to his reports.
On 21 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the ongoing problem. It stated that it was limited in the action it could take under the lockdown. It explained its intention to ask a surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s garden to see if there was a “compromised drain” and to let the solicitor know that the garden was still not cleaned adequately.
On the same day, the landlord also told the resident that his emails were under the subject of ASB and not within the remit of the customer relations team or complaint process as its ASB process was dealt with by the housing manager. The resident replied and told the landlord that the ASB part was closed and asked the landlord not to confuse this; he reiterated that the neighbour was not complying with their tenancy and the landlord had “failed” to resolve the rat problem.
On 27 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and explained that the pest operative did not attend the neighbour’s property as the neighbour was in but did not answer. The landlord enquired into this with its contractors, but the outcome was not clear.
In early June 2020 the landlord noted that the neighbour had been spoken to about his personal circumstances. The landlord noted the neighbour’s limitation in clearing the garden and it arranged for this to be completed (8 June 2020). This was confirmed to be cleared on 10 June 2020.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and said that the garden next door had been cleared and that pest control would next attend as a repair (“breach in the sewer pipe”) had been identified in the garden.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 June 2020 and said that he had not seen a contractor attempt to visit the neighbour. The landlord chased this on 18 – 19 June 2020. The pest contractor provided an update with the actions it took on 11 June 2020. The landlord then updated the resident about the treatment work (24 June 2020).
The landlord also chased the contractor for an update on the sewer pipes (22 June 2020). It was established that a quote was submitted and awaiting approval.
The landlord told the resident that a job was raised to repair the sewer pipe but it did not have a date for this yet (24 June 2020). On 29 June 2020 the landlord emailed its contractor and asked if it had an update on the sewer pipes.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 2 July 2020 detailing the rats he caught and said that whatever the landlord thought it was doing, it was not working.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s photograph of the rats to several contractors (who had been liaising with it about the sewer and baiting). The landlord chased the contractor for an update on the sewer pipes (2 and 6 July 2020).
The contractor replied on 6 July 2020 and said that the quotes which were submitted for the repair were approved that day, so it would contact the neighbour to book them in.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord contacted the contractors again and asked for an update on the baiting and to confirm that this was for the rats (as previously the contractors had indicated that it baited for mice). The landlord queried if the baiting programme was complete with the contractor as it said that the resident shared further evidence of rats. The contractor replied and said that the pest control as standard was three visits approximately two weeks apart (9 July 2020).
On 9 July 2020 the resident chased a response from the landlord about his request for compensation. On the same day, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord. This followed the resident’s email to the Ombudsman in June 2020 in which he relayed his concerns about the rats and the landlord’s response to this.
The landlord replied to the resident on 13 July 2020 and apologised for the delay in its response. It updated the resident about the work (this will be carried out on 15 July 2020 and 17 July 2020) and it said it would look into the compensation as soon as the work had been completed.
On 14 July 2020 the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the complaint was logged at stage one, it provided details about the neighbour’s circumstances and the neighbour’s garden (including the landlord’s experience dealing with the neighbour and his refusal of access). It explained that it arranged a cycle of baiting on 11 June 2020 and discovered after the clearance that a sewer pipe had been breached which compounded the rat issue. It stated that the final treatment was to be completed on 15 July 2020 followed up by proofing and a repair to the sewer pipe on 17 July 2020.
On 27 July 2020 the contractors and landlord discussed the pest control measures that were taken.
The contractor told the landlord that the works on site were completed on 27 July 2020 and no bait had been taken from the bait boxes so these were removed due to no new activity.
The landlord contacted one of its other contractors and highlighted that there was confusion over the pest which were being dealt with: they were supposed to be dealing with the rat problem following the resident’s reports of rats entering his property from the neighbour’s property. It said that at no point were the pest contractors supposed to be treating internal mice problems (as this would be for the neighbour to raise himself). It asked if anything could be done for the rats and also asked for an update on the sewer pipe.
The pest contractor confirmed that the landlord raised a job for the neighbour’s property, and when the contractor attended it found mice, not rats. It then actioned its baiting service and was preparing a proofing service which it said was an internal proofing of holes against rodents; it enquired into whether the landlord wanted to proceed. The maintenance contractor then forwarded the pest contractor’s email (in which it detailed the baiting it had done to the neighbour’s kitchen for mice) to the landlord and said that the job was carried out for rats.
The landlord did not acknowledge the discrepancy in the reports. It did not take steps to arrange a further inspection or raise a job after identifying the potential error and lack of action taken towards rats.
There was a lack of action to address rats in the neighbour’s garden, as the pest contractor’s notes documented its baiting programme inside of the neighbour’s property (for mice).
The landlord did not arrange an inspection or pest control treatment for the resident’s property or garden.
The conversation between the landlord and contractor on the baiting stopped here and turned onto the outstanding repair to the sewer pipe.
On 29 July 2020 the maintenance contractor sent the landlord a repair report. The landlord emailed the maintenance contractor that it had waited two weeks for the repair report (for the sewer pipe) and was now being told that the garage needed to be emptied. The landlord highlighted that this was a complaint and that this had prolonged the works. It acknowledged that the resident was killing rats himself, which was in double figures, in the meantime.
In terms of the status of the repair, the contractor was to book in an appointment with the neighbour and the garage needed to be emptied. This was so that the pipe could be fixed, as it was believed that this is where rats were gaining access into the area.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with interim measures in respect of the ongoing admission of rats through the broken pipe next door into the resident’s garden. It did not arrange any baiting for the resident or discuss temporary arrangements to stop the rats whilst the repair was outstanding.
On 29 July 2020 the contractor attended the neighbour’s property and told the landlord that the rats were coming through the sewer pipe which was in the garage. The contractor required the garage to be cleared, in order for them to be able to replace or repair the pipe. The contractor told the landlord that it discussed the situation with the neighbour. At the time, the contractor could not get access to the garage. It rebooked the appointment to come back and access the garage another time, however, the neighbour could not subsequently give access.
On 31 July 2020 the landlord updated the resident and said that the bait work was completed and one more visit was required to carry out proofing (in the neighbour’s property). In respect of the repair to the sewer pipe, it said that there were delays and it provided an explanation of this; this was due to access to the repair which was blocked by items in the neighbour’s garage. It cited data protection as the reason for its limit in the information that it could provide the resident with.
On 11 August 2020 the landlord contacted the contractor and asked for an update on getting access to the repair through the neighbour’s garage and fixing the sewer pipe. The contractor sent back its previous update about the neighbour’s circumstances and the limitations on its ability to get access; the landlord responded and pointed out that this issue was two weeks ago and wanted to know what the current position was.
On 14 August 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response:
1. It understood that the complaint was about ongoing issues with rats from the neighbour’s garden and the time taken to resolve this. It understood that the resident wanted the rats to be stopped and compensation.
2. It considered the resident’s concern about the neighbour as ASB until a formal complaint was raised in May. Despite “many requests”, the neighbour did not clear the garden which allowed the rat problem to continue. It eventually requested a contractor to clear the overgrown bushes.
3. Once it cleared the garden it found a repair to the sewer pipe and considered that this is where the rats were getting access.
4. It requested repair works to the sewer but “due to unforeseen circumstances” which it mentioned in its email of 31 July 2020 it could not complete this. It went on to explain that the repair was in the neighbour’s garage and this needed to be cleared, which could not be completed at present.
5. It carried out baiting (to the neighbour’s property).
6. It recognised a service failure and offered £100; this consisted of £50 for a service failure and £50 for delays.
On 18 August 2020 the landlord and its contractors discussed the lack of access to the neighbour’s property. The contractor was unsuccessful in gaining admission to the garage to carry out the repair for a third time.
The resident escalated the complaint through a representative at Citizens Advice on 28 August 2020. The resident’s escalation letter said:
1. The level of compensation was insufficient for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure and delay to address the severe rat infestation in the property.
2. The resident contacted the landlord “persistently” over several years about the issue and could evidence his reports from 19 April 2019 (which it attached). He contacted the landlord “many times” before this and a review of the landlord’s records should show his historic complaints.
3. The housing officer visited in 2018 and was shown the holes and pictures of dead rats.
4. The landlord only recently took action, it had previously said it would get back to him (email of 14 October 2019) or said that it was the not their responsibility (email of 17 May 2019).
5. The rat infestation was “extreme”. The resident had disposed of over 90 rats and had photographs on request. He spent £200 on baits, traps and equipment to address the issue himself and had copies of invoices for £110.03 of expenses (which it attached).
6. In addition to the financial cost, the resident experienced the distress at having to bait, trap and kill the rats.
7. The resident acknowledged that the neighbour was difficult and hoarded but believed that the landlord was “slow to take action” and avoided addressing the issue. The resident believed that the landlord should have used its available tools such as its right to access the property at an earlier stage.
8. The resident requested £950.
9. The resident reported that the rodent infestation had eased in the last two months, however, the dividing fence was in a poor state of repair and punctured with rat holes, he wanted a rat proof fence with deep concrete footing to replace the existing fence.
The resident also contacted his local councillor on 6 September 2020. The local councillor confirmed on 2 October 2020 that the landlord said that it would contact the resident and arrange an escalation.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord emailed the resident:
1. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint.
2. The resident wrote to it on 30 July 2020 and CAB wrote to it on 28 August 2020 but this was not followed up.
3. It provided the stage two leaflet and detailed the panel review process.
On 15 October 2020 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to encourage it to escalate the complaint. The landlord confirmed that it was in the process of agreeing a time for the complaint review panel to take place.
On 20 November 2020 the resident emailed a letter to the landlord.
1. The resident outlined his reports of the rat issue to the landlord (including photographs and videos).
2. He told the landlord of the rats which he caught and the “laborious cleaning method” for each live trap kill (rats which he caught live which were then killed in a wooden box). The resident explained that he could not use detergent cleaners to remove the rats from the re-usable traps (as the scent of the cleaners would compromise the traps). Therefore, he had to use five filled boiled kettles to clean the wooden box (with images attached). He said “the steam from rat urine and faeces was nauseating and the stench remained with me for a couple of hours after each clean”.
3. The resident explained that this was a “serious and dangerous” and he had also shown the landlord the damage to the garden by the rats onsite and told it by telephone. This included collapsed slabs, damage to the fence and the digging by the rats. The resident said he arranged to fix some of the damage through family members and he detailed the materials used to remedy the problem.
4. The resident explained that the number of rats he had killed exceeded 100.
5. The resident explained that the rat issue was reported in 2017 as a secondary issue to the ASB problem which the resident experienced with the neighbour.
6. The resident also said that a mice infestation from the neighbour was ongoing.
7. The resident shared photographs of holes and damage to the dividing fence and gaps beneath the paving slabs in the garden, with screwdrivers fitted between the slab and the ground, to show the gaps where the rats had been digging under. He also shared various images of dead rats which he had caught as well as some of the rat traps he had.
On 26 November 2020, preparation for the complaint review panel hearing took place. The landlord established that it experienced difficulty in gaining access to the neighbour’s property and it said that it would “have to consider taking legal action”. It also raised an inspection for the fence.
On 3 December 2020 the review panel hearing with the resident took place. On 22 December 2020 the panel review hearing issued its report. It said:
1. The rat problem ceased since September 2020.
2. The resident sought £950 compensation (for the time, trouble and cost in dealing with the rats and repairing the damage to his property).
3. It acknowledged that it was slow to take action and not seen through to a conclusion.
4. It acknowledged that it failed to raise a job with its pest control contractor to visit the resident’s home to assist with the rats.
5. However, it noted that there were “large gaps” between reports of the problem and if it was made aware of the worsening situation then it may have taken a different course of action.
6. The landlord acknowledged its failures in dealing with the complaint and agreed compensation to recognise this inconvenience.
7. It proposed £500 (£200 to cover the resident’s cost of killing the rats himself, £100 for complaint handling failures and £200 for the failure to deal with the rat problem and impact on the resident).
8. It (the panel) asked the landlord to make sure that the work to the pipe in the neighbour’s property was concluded and that it repair/replace the section of the fence damaged by the rats.
The evidence shows that the resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2021 asking for an update on the sewer pipe fix and a replacement fence, as both these items remained outstanding. The landlord’s response has not been seen.
In March 2021 the resident emailed the Ombudsman and referred to the panel hearing (3 December 2020) and outcome report (22 December 2020). He said that the rat infestation was sourced from an outstanding repair to a sewer pipe in the neighbouring property and he did not know if this was complete. The fence was still not repaired, this was promised in 2020 at the panel. The resident said that the entire fence was requested to be replaced and reinforced at ground level to stop future infestations.
The resident’s recent communication to the Ombudsman after the complaint process had been concluded said:
1. The landlord had not concluded the work to the pipe next door. The landlord had not updated the resident about its investigation into whether there were holes in the sewer pipes running under the neighbour’s property.
2. Mice were entering from the neighbour’s property.
3. In February 2021, the contractors who attended to replace the fence were not instructed about the appropriate scope of the work and had to go away to get this approved, they returned the next day and completed the fence replacement work.
4. There was a gap between the fence and the end wall, the resident believed this was where rats were coming through. The rat problem had eased but still persisted, and from December 2020 – June 2021 the resident was still buying rat traps and managing the rats himself.
5. He detailed the process for clearing the debris and how this impacted him. He explained that his disabilities were limiting so he would also need the help of his daughter or wife and they were also distressed at the managing the rats.
6. The resident explained that he cannot use certain cleaning items (such as bleach or Dettol). Therefore, he has to boil 5 kettles of water each time to clean the trapped rats/areas. He said that the landlord did not believe him when he said this. He explained that this caused a “disgusting stench” when the steam from the boiling water would go into his face while he was cleaning and disposing of the rats. He has to do this in order to clear away the rats he would catch.
7. He also explained that he would have rats run into his home, around and underneath his legs. His family are angry and he cannot leave his doors open even in hot weather.
8. He incurred more expenses in dealing with the rats and provided invoices for items such as rat traps and equipment:
  1. Invoice dated 3 December 2021 amount: £23.98
  2. Invoice dated 10 March 2021 amount: £22.44
  3. Invoice dated 8 April 2021 amount: £32.68
  4. Invoice dated 26 June 2021 amount: £14.44
  5. Total £93.54

Assessment and findings

At present, the resident has said that there remain problems with rats entering his property. This eased at one point (in 2020) but it has not stopped. In December 2020, he was finding rats again and he has since been managing it as before, through his own efforts to trap and kill them. The resident has not had contact from the landlord despite his chasers for information about the sewer repair earlier this year.

Complaint handling

In respect of the complaint handling, the resident complained through various emails to the landlord in 2019. However, the landlord did not log a complaint until May 2020. The delay in logging a formal complaint despite the resident’s clear dissatisfaction was unreasonable. The landlord subsequently failed to escalate the complaint, despite the resident’s request. There has been a service failure in the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord recognised this and offered redress by way of an apology and compensation (£100). This is in line with what the Ombudsman would award for similar complaint handling failures where there has been a delay, but the complaint was then logged and progressed. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident in respect of the delays and it was reasonable for it to offer compensation in recognition of the time and trouble which he experienced. There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s identified service failure in its complaint handling.
In respect of the learning from the complaint handling failure, the landlord is reminded of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Code which states “a complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents” (1.2) and “the resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such…” (1.3).

Response to the resident’s report of rats

The landlord’s offer of £200 to cover the resident’s costs for dealing with the rats himself was initially reasonable. This is because it recognised the financial impact of its failure to respond to the report of pests by the resident. However, the lack of prompt follow–through by the landlord in respect of the repairs under its agreed resolution has resulted in further financial loss by the resident (calculated as £93.54). Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to compensate him for the additional costs too. The landlord’s offer of £200 for the distress and inconvenience is not proportionate to the overall impact and detriment which the resident has experienced, in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s reports of rats to the landlord from 2019 onwards. The landlord initially said that the management of the reported rats were “down to them” (meaning the resident and the neighbour). This was not appropriate; the home management policy states the procedure which the landlord is to follow when it receives a report of rats (as set out above, paragraph 5). The landlord has not evidenced that it followed this procedure. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports from November 2019 was only seen in February 2020 (when it asked the neighbour to clear their garden). There was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in taking action following the residents reports about the rats.
The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged that it was “slow to act” but also said that there were “large gaps” between the resident’s reports and it may have acted differently had this not been the case. This was not reasonable because:
1. The landlord did not consider or address the impact of its historic communication with the resident on his willingness to chase the landlord and report the matter to it regularly. The evidence shows that his early reports did not result in action, and he had to manage the rats himself.
2. The evidence shows that when the resident did report his concern to the landlord, especially in 2019, he was not met with a reasonable response. The landlord either referred the matter back to the resident and neighbour, or it said that it would go to its solicitor to help clear the neighbour’s garden (which in and of itself was reasonable) but it was delayed in carrying out this step.
3. There was no communication from the landlord to update the resident between November 2019 – February 2020, when it had proposed to send a letter to the neighbour, and the resident continued to manage the rats himself during this period.
4. There was no evidence that the landlord appropriately reviewed the resident’s reports on those occasions where he did email the landlord with updates or images.
5. It was not reasonable for the landlord to limit its own accountability by reference to what the resident did not do, especially as it was aware of its own lack of responsiveness to the issue to begin with.
The landlord’s response in early 2020 was to arrange for its solicitor to contact the neighbour and prompt them to clear the garden. Although the correspondence to the neighbour was not seen, this action has not been disputed and has been corroborated by the resident’s update to the landlord that the neighbour cleared the garden (but this was not enough). The landlord eventually arranged to clear the garden itself in June 2020.
At no point while waiting for the neighbour to clear their garden (or later, while waiting for the repair to the sewer pipe) did the landlord initiate its pest control procedure in respect of the resident’s property. All the while, the resident was left to manage the rats himself. This was inappropriate.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with interim measures, to help him handle the overspill of rats from the garden and outstanding repair in the neighbour’s property.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to take steps to help the resident, who was sending the landlord reports of the rats he had killed, photographs of the traps and a detailed description of how he had to clean them (November 2020).
This resident explained that he had disabilities and struggled with the task of managing the rats, not being able to open his garden doors in hot weather and the physical damage which the rats caused to his property. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that his wife and daughter would help him dispose of the rats, and they also found this distressing. It is clear that this situation has had a severe impact on the resident’s enjoyment of his home.
The evidence shows that there was some confusion about the scope and application of the job which the contractor was carrying out, once the landlord had accepted its responsibility and arranged an inspection (May 2020).
The contractor addressed the internal property of the neighbour, and addressed mice, not rats. When the landlord spotted the confusion and highlighted this to the pest contractor, they replied with a copy of an email (that outlined the works for mice) and said that this job was for rats. Therefore, it has not clearly been evidenced that the resident’s reports of rats entering his property from the neighbour’s garden was sufficiently addressed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this further.
At the point where it was clear that there was confusion over whether the baiting addressed the resident’s reports of rats in his garden, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to meet / discuss the matter with its contractors to ascertain exactly what action was taken, so that it could make an informed decision about how to proceed. As it stood, the landlord passed on the contractor’s update about the baiting dates to the resident and missed the opportunity to rectify the job to address the rats. It also continued to miss the opportunity to raise a job for baiting in the resident’s property as well, to help him manage the rats.
The landlord’s next actions, after the discussion about the baiting, were to chase the contractor for updates about the repair to the sewer pipe. This repair was outstanding in the neighbouring property (described as “a breach of the sewer pipe”). This outstanding repair was considered to be giving access to the rats. The landlord identified this repair in May and June 2020 (although the inspection and repair diagnosis has not been seen). The landlord’s final response in December 2020 set out its resolution to conclude the repairs to the sewer pipe. This has not happened and has been outstanding for 1 year and 5 months (which is 1 year and 4 months over the reasonable timeframe for routine repairs).
It is acknowledged that the landlord experienced problems gaining access to the garage to complete the repair and this was partially due to Covid-19 guidance on one occasion. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not engage in the available legal tools to progress the repair to the sewer pipe, having received several reports from its contractors about the continued difficulty gaining access (especially on the occasions where the delay was unrelated to Covid-19 guidance). It would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise its options to gain access, after having given reasonable notice and in compliance with the relevant guidelines and legislation. This is especially as its housing management policy states that rats are a “high risk” to residents health and safety. The landlord is also aware of the resident’s disabilities and the detailed evidence which the resident provided it with about his experience managing the rats.
The resulting delay due to the access problems with the neighbour has increased the overall delay to the resident in resolving the rat infestation. This was following the initial delay by the landlord in addressing the pests (2019), the delay in having the garden cleared (2019 – 2020) and then the delay caused by the unclear baiting programme by its contractors (2020).
The landlord did not evidence its response to the resident’s reports about mice entering his property, the resident had emailed it about this in November 2020.
In respect of the fence replacement, this was agreed in December 2020 but the landlord did not complete this until sometime in 2021, after February/March 2021. The landlord did not complete the outstanding repair within a reasonable timescale.
The resident pointed out to the Ombudsman that there remained a gap between the fence and end wall which may be serving a further access point to the rats, however, this appears to have become apparent after the fence replacement so the resident may raise this as a repair with the landlord.
It is important to note that while the landlord has completed the fence replacement, which was required due to the damage from the rats, if the sewer repair remains outstanding and rats continue to enter into the vicinity, this may be a cause for concern in the future. It is therefore important that the landlord complete the sewer repair as soon as possible.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a rat infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports about the rats appropriately. Its initial response was not in line with its procedure, its subsequent response (to have the garden cleared) took over several months (from November 2019 – June 2020).
The landlord did not raise a job for the resident’s property in line with its pest procedure (ie there was no inspection or immediate treatment of rats). It is not appropriate that the resident had to resolve the rat issue by himself, despite his known disabilities.
The landlord did not take reasonable steps to repair the sewer pipe, which it considered to be an access point for the rats. This has been outstanding since June 2020. The landlord became aware of the difficulty in gaining access to the neighbour’s property following its contractor’s visits in July 2020, yet has not evidenced that it has taken reasonable steps to address this and to complete the repair.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
  1. £400 for distress and inconvenience
  2. £93.54 for the resident’s further expenses
  3. Plus the original £100 for the complaint handling, £200 for expenses and £200 for the originally identified distress and inconvenience (if this sum of £500 has not already been paid).
2. The landlord is ordered to:
  1. Arrange appropriate pest control in the resident’s garden and property as needed.
  2. Provide the resident with its action plan about the outstanding repair works.
  3. Arrange for the sewer repair to be completed without delay.
3. The landlord is recommended to:
  1. Inspect the repair/gap in the back wall to see if this is contributing to the rat problem.
The landlord is requested to confirm compliance with the Ombudsman.