Southwark Council (202440505)

Background

1. The resident reported mice in the property in July 2023. The landlord arranged a pest control visit. It identified proofing works and laid bait. It completed some proofing works in November 2023. The resident reported the issue again in January 2024, and further pest control visits went ahead throughout 2024. The resident complained about its handling of the pest control issue and said the landlord had missed appointments and not done the proofing works.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest control issues, and the associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest control issues and the associated repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest control issues

6. On the resident’s reports of pest control issues the landlord promptly arranged pest control visits. The landlord failed to complete proofing works it identified at its inspection, a fact it accepted. The landlord’s complaint response was inaccurate on when the resident reported the issue had returned. It also failed to appropriately apply its compensation policy and did not offer compensation for the time and trouble the resident experienced chasing it about proofing works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to open a complaint investigation when the resident first complained. Its stage 1 complaint response did not address all the concerns complained about.  It inappropriately opened another stage 1 complaint investigation, rather than progressing the complaint to stage 2. It delayed progressing the complaint to stage 2 after its second stage 1 response.

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.

8. The resident complained the issue with mice in her property was outstanding since 2021. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. She raised a formal complaint in August 2024. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue in 2021. We have not seen evidence they were prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of pest control issues dating back to 2021.
9. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the matter in the reasonable period leading up to when the resident first made a formal complaint, in August 2024. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the matter from July 2023. We acknowledge this is slightly outside our usual 12 month timeframe. This is to take in to account the landlord’s visit from July 2023 when it identified the need for proofing works.
10. The resident said the pest control issue, and the landlord’s handling of it, impacted on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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 decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. The landlord identified the need for proofing works at a pest control visit in July 2023. There is no evidence any proofing works went ahead at that time. This is an error in its handling of the matter.
12. The landlord did a further pest control visit in September 2023. It found it did not need to do proofing works in the kitchen, only the storage cupboard. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified operative, we have seen no evidence it communicated its change in position to the resident. This was an error in its communication that caused an inconvenience.
13. The landlord did some proofing works on 2 November 2023. This was 2 months it identified the works at its visit, and was outside of the 20 working day target set out in its repairs policy. While not an excessive delay, any delay would cause some level of inconvenience.
14. The landlord appropriately did a follow up visit on 23 November 2023 to see if its proofing works had worked. Its visit found no evidence of further activity. At that point the landlord was reasonably of the view its actions had resolved the matter.
15. When the resident reported the mice issue had returned in January 2024, the landlord promptly completed another pest control visit. This was appropriate in the circumstances. There is no evidence further consideration was given to possible proofing works needed at that visit. This is a shortcoming in the landlord’s response, particularly considering the evidence of mice were found in areas where proofing works were done/considered before (kitchen and storage cupboard).
16. The landlord identified further proofing works in June 2024, in the kitchen and storage cupboard. It completed proofing to the cupboard in July 2024 which was within its target 20 working day timeframe. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the kitchen proofing works did not go ahead at the time. A fact the landlord accepted. She was evidently distressed at the presence of mice in her property. The landlord’s failure to progress with the proofing works it identified may have contributed to her distress.
17. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord about the proofing works to the kitchen in August, September, October and December 2024. This was evidently frustrating for her, as explained in her complaint in January 2025. She was inconvenienced by the need to complain before the landlord arranged the works to the kitchen.
18. The landlord progressed with some of the proofing works on 9 January 2025 and it completed them on 29 January 2025. This was within a reasonable period of the resident raising her complaint about the matter. This is evidence the landlord took her concern seriously and acted promptly on receipt of the complaint.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response gave a history of its handling of the issue. It also set out the actions it planned to take, and sought to reassure the resident it would replace the worktop if it was damaged by the proofing works. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We welcome the fact the landlord sought to apply its compensation policy and award compensation for the delay. It is unclear why the landlord offered compensation from July 2024, when it is clear the resident reported the issue had returned in January 2024.
20. The landlord also failed to offer compensation for the time and trouble the resident experienced chasing the matter. Its compensation policy says time and trouble is “separate from delay or distress” and is offered for “time and effort” a resident has put in to get a resolution to their problem. By not factoring in the effort the resident spent chasing it about the proofing works, it missed an opportunity to fully put things right.
21. The landlord appropriately replaced the sink and worktop after its proofing works, in February 2025. This was in line with its commitment made in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord replaced the worktop and sink within its 20 working day policy target.
22. The landlord said it would only investigate the matter in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint. This was an appropriate application of our Complaint Handling Code. However, it inaccurately said the first instance the resident reported the issue in the 12 month period was in April 2024. The landlord’s records show the resident reported the issue returned in January 2024.
23. We welcome the fact the landlord made an increased offer of compensation for the delay dating back to April 2024. However, considering the above, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation to reflect the resident put it back on notice in January 2024. We consider it appropriate, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, to order it to pay the resident £5 per week in compensation from February 2024, instead of April 2024. This is factoring in its policy timeframe of 20 working days to complete non urgent repairs.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also failed to put right its earlier error for not offering compensation for the time and trouble the resident experienced. She chased the landlord about proofing works on at least 7 occasions in August, September, October, November, and December 2024. She did so again in her complaint in January 2025. In recognition of this we order the landlord to pay her £100 in compensation, in line with its own compensation policy.
25. The evidence shows the landlord did further works to the kitchen, in July 2025. The resident reported to us, in March 2026, the mouse infestation is ongoing. These matters occurred after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to respond to first. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs, and the mouse infestation, she may want to make a complaint. We may then investigate if she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Due to the resident’s ongoing concern, we recommend the landlord inspects the kitchen to identify a lasting proofing solution to the issue with mice entering through the kitchen.

26. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation on 6 August 2024. Her email was sent to the landlord’s complaints team, as well as the pest control team. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to open a complaint investigation at the time. The landlord operated a hard to access complaints process.
27. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to complain again on 24 October 2024 before getting a formal response. The landlord sent its response within the 10 working day timeframe set out in our Code. But, its response only addressed the resident’s concern about a compensation request for a missed appointment. The resident’s complaint raised concerns about its overall handling of the issue. Our Code says a landlord must respond to all aspects of a resident’s complaint. It failed to do so.
28. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, and compensation offer, on 11 November 2024. The landlord should have opened a stage 2 complaint investigation at that time. Our Code says a complaint must be escalated to stage 2 if the resident is unhappy with any part of its stage 1 response. It failed to adhere to the approach set out in our Code, which inconvenienced the resident.
29. When the resident complained again, in January 2025, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframe set out in its complaint policy and our Code.
30. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with its later stage 1 complaint response on 27 January 2025. Again, the landlord failed to open a stage 2 complaint at that time. This inconvenienced the resident. She was further inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord for response on 11 February 2025, before it opened a stage 2 complaint investigation. The resulted in the resident receiving the stage 2 complaint response 45 working days after she first expressed unhappiness with its stage 1 response. This inconvenienced her.
31. Our compensation guidance, available on our website, says that orders up to £100 may be appropriate for complaint handling errors when there were repeated minor delays and had made no attempt to put things right. In light of the above errors, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication.

32. The landlord’s records were adequate to enable us to complete our investigation. The landlord’s communication about the repairs related to the pest control issues was poor. The resident experienced time and trouble by having to repeatedly chase it about the proofing repairs.