Torus62 Limited (202449305)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449305

Torus62 Limited

1 October 2025

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of rodents in and around the property.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in December 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a ground floor, 1-bedroom flat in a 3-storey block of flats. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities.
The resident reported:
1. mice in the property on 6 December 2023.
2. rats in the outside communal bin area on 22 July 2024.
3. rats in the communal bin area due to fly-tipping and bins not being emptied on 16 September 2024.
4. rats in the ceiling between his property and the flat above on 24 September 2024.
Contractors attended on 30 September 2024 and recommended a drain survey. In October 2024 the resident reported rats in the ceiling and droppings in his light fixtures multiple times. Contractors laid bait in the communal loft 2 times in October 2024 and found evidence of rats.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2024. He said:
1. there was an ongoing issue with rats and poor living conditions, and he was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with his reports.
2. he thought the rats were from the property above his and that the resident above was not allowing the landlord to complete works in their property.
Contractors removed bait from the communal loft and found no activity on 18 November 2024. The landlord said contractors attended to complete a drain survey on 22 November 2024 but could not access the property.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2024. It said it had delayed in completing a drain survey and would schedule this. It upheld the complaint and offered £50 compensation.
On 6 December 2024 the resident reported that the rat infestation was ongoing. Contractors attended and laid bait in the kitchen. They said they found the bait untouched on 14 January 2025. On 30 January 2025 the resident confirmed there were still rats in the ceiling above his property.
On 2 January 2025 the resident told the landlord he did not accept the compensation offered at stage 1. On 5 February 2025 he said he wanted to move to a different property due to the ongoing rat issue and that it had not responded to his calls or emails. On 27 February 2025he told the landlord he thought it should take action if other residents were not allowing access for works.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint on 3 March 2025. It said:
1. the resident had not previously allowed access for the drain survey to be completed. It said it would complete a drain survey on 7 March 2025.
2. its contractors had tried to eliminate pests but there were factors making this difficult including the structure of the block and communal spaces, residents not allowing access, and fly-tipping which attracted rats.
3. it had ordered locks to secure the rear communal area and would arrange fly-tipping checks. It said it would put bait in the communal loft.
4. it advised the resident to apply to the local housing allocations scheme.
5. it did not uphold his complaint as it said there had been no further service failures since its stage 2 response.
In referring the complaint to this Service on 5 March 2025, the resident said he did not feel the landlord had taken sufficient action to resolve the ongoing rat infestation. He wanted it to resolve this or to rehouse him.

Post internal complaints procedure

The landlord completed a drain survey on 7 March 2025 and said it found no issues with the drains. The landlord and resident have confirmed a rat infestation is ongoing. The resident said he has found rats behind the cabinets in his kitchen which contractors have responded to. The landlord said in August 2025 contractors identified access points which they could not get to at the back of the resident’s kitchen cupboards.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said his mental health was impacted by the landlord’s actions. Unlike a court, we may not determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and a resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to make a personal injury claim. However, where we have identified a landlord’s failures, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Rodents in and around the property

The landlord’s repairs policy said:
1. it would attend routine repairs within 20 days and emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. it would keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains and walls. It said it was responsible for all communal areas and would monitor them using estate inspections.
3. some vulnerable residents would require an enhanced repairs service. It said this may include referrals to other agencies or arranging temporary rehousing and may require a risk assessment to be completed.
4. it would normally give notice of appointments in writing and would not cancel works unless a resident said they were not required.
The resident’s tenancy agreement said the landlord was not responsible for rodent infestations unless it was due to its failure to comply with repair obligations. The landlord has not provided a separate pest control policy. Its repairs policy said it was a resident’s responsibility to arrange the treatment of rodent infestations, but it may arrange and pay for this service.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool introduced by the Housing Act 2004. HHSRS identifies pests as a potential health hazard.
Section 9.A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) requires landlords to ensure defects (which may include hazards under the HHSRS) do not cause them to be unfit for human habitation. Infestations may also amount to a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Landlords should have consideration for any pest problems in their properties and whether they may amount to a hazard, or whether any associated defects require remedying.
Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights the need for landlords to ensure effective record keeping. The landlord’s record keeping in this case has impacted our ability to assess some of its actions, which we have referred to throughout this report. The dates and details in the landlord’s records are often unclear or do not match its contractors’ reports. Much of its evidence does not contain contemporaneous notes of the action taken. This has made it difficult to assess the landlord’s actions, which is unreasonable and a record keeping failure.
The landlord did not suggest that responding to the pest issue was the resident’s responsibility. It was therefore reasonable for it to respond to his reports of rodents and arrange and pay for pest control services. When a resident reports an internal rodent infestation, it is reasonable for a landlord to assess how they are entering the building and whether this is caused by its failure to comply with its repair obligations. Throughout the period we have investigated, the landlord did not do this. This was unreasonable given the resident’s reports.
The landlord failed to respond to callback requests and contact the resident as agreed on multiple occasions. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this within its complaints process, which was unreasonable.
When the resident reported mice in the property on 6 December 2023, the landlord said he also reported rubbish in the bin areas. It said its contractors attended on 19 January 2024 but could not access the property. It has not provided evidence that it gave the resident notice, or that it followed up on this visit. On 18 January 2024 it said its contractors attended. However, it is unclear whether they took any action due to conflicting evidence.
When the resident reported rats in the communal bin area on 22 July 2024, he asked the landlord to send letters to other residents about the bins to help prevent rats. The landlord said it would have sent letters to residents but has provided no evidence that it did. It did not take any action to identify whether the reported pest issue was its responsibility or take any action to respond to the report of rats, which was unreasonable.
The landlord received a report of fly-tipping on 16 August 2024. It did not respond until 18 October 2024, which was unreasonable given the resident’s reports of rats in September and October 2024. When the resident reported rats and fly-tipping in the communal bin area and bins not being emptied in September 2024, it did not identify whether the reported pest issue was its responsibility or take any action in response to the resident’s reports, which was unreasonable.
When the resident reported rats in the ceiling between flats on 24 September 2024, he said he was very distressed and had a rat phobia. On 27 September 2024 he asked what the landlord could do to support him and said he could not live in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to instruct pest control contractors to prioritise works. It arranged a welfare call and said it attempted to call the resident on 30 September 2024 but has not provided contemporaneous evidence of this.
Given that the resident said he could not live in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether it was appropriate to rehouse him. That it did not address the resident’s concerns about remaining in the property was unreasonable.
Pest control contractors attended the property on 30 September 2024. The landlord said the resident did not allow access. The resident said he told them local authority pest control had attended that day and laid bait but did not refuse access. He said the landlord’s contractors told him they could not do anything as the rats were in the ceiling. The contractors recommended a drain survey and said it was likely the rats were entering the cavities via the drains in the communal yard.
Given that the rats were reported to be in the structure of the building and were suspected to be entering from a communal area, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise drain survey works on 2 October 2024. However, the survey was not booked until 22 November 2024, 39 working days after it was recommended. Given that the target for these works was 24 October 2024 and there is no evidence of the reason for the delay, this was unreasonable.
The resident requested an update on the ongoing rat issue on 3 October 2024. The landlord raised works on 4 October 2024 with a target date of 3 November 2024 to check the loft space and communal areas of the block for rats. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a reactive repair.
The resident requested an update on 7, 8 and 9 October 2024 and said he could not stay in the property and was not currently staying there due to the rats. The landlord said it would call him to discuss potential support but did not do so as promised or consider whether an enhanced repairs service such as referrals to other agencies, a risk assessment or temporary rehousing was appropriate. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
On 10 October 2024 the resident reported rats in his ceiling and rat droppings in his light fittings. On 11 October 2024 contractors said they confirmed droppings in a light fitting. They said they laid bait in the communal loft which they said the rats could access as it was linked to the cavities. On 22 October 2024 they said they attended to check the communal loft, confirmed evidence of rats and rebaited. The contractors said they removed bait from the communal loft and confirmed no further activity on 18 November 2024. Putting bait in the communal loft was reasonable. However, the landlord’s records are unclear which has made it difficult to further assess its actions.
When the landlord became aware that rodents/ droppings were present in the property, it did not show due regard to its duties under the LTA to ensure the property was fit for human habitation. This was unreasonable.
The landlord said a contractor tried to complete a drain survey on 22 November 2024. However, it has not provided contemporaneous evidence of the visit, that it provided notice or that it followed up on this visit which has impacted our ability to assess its actions. It then cancelled the works, which was not in line with its repairs policy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response:
1. it was reasonable for it to apologise for the delay in completing a drain survey and offer compensation.
2. it was reasonable for it to agree to book a drain survey. However, it did not raise these works until 18 February 2025 which was an unreasonable delay.
3. it did not acknowledge its communication failures, or its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about staying in the property.
4. it did not respond to the resident’s concerns that another resident was preventing its ability to complete pest control works.
On 6 December 2024 the resident reported rats within the cavities between his property and the flat above. The landlord said he reported droppings under the kitchen units and in the ceiling. It raised pest control works which was reasonable. Contractors put bait in the kitchen which was reasonable. However, it is unclear from the landlord’s record when this took place.
The landlord said its contractor confirmed on 14 January 2025 that the bait was untouched and that the resident told them the noises in the ceiling had stopped for a few weeks. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of these visits, which has impacted our ability to assess its actions.
On 30 January 2025 the resident confirmed there were still rats in the ceiling. He questioned why contractors had not put bait in the ceiling between his property and the flat above and questioned how they would access the cavities. It may have been helpful for the landlord to explain that it had previously laid bait in the communal loft which was linked to the cavities. It took no action to lay further bait in the communal loft or address his reports that there were still rats in the ceiling. This was unreasonable.
On 30 January 2025 the contractors informed the landlord:
1. rodents were potentially running from flat to flat through the wall and ceiling cavities. They said they would need to find the access points and seal them.
2. they had tried to identify access points in another resident’s flat, but they did not allow access.
3. apart from baiting the communal loft and completing a drain survey, the only other way it could respond to the rat infestation was to raise jobs for each flat in the block as the rats may be breeding in one of them.
The landlord has not provided evidence of how it responded to the contractors reports that another resident had not allowed access, which is unreasonable and has impacted our ability to assess its actions. It did not raise a drain survey until 18 February 2025 or consider whether further bait in the communal loft was required. Nor did it raise jobs for each of the flats in the block, or document why this action was inappropriate. This was unreasonable.
Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. Its communication with its contractors suggests it lacked effective communication with them and oversight of the response to the infestation, which was unreasonable.
When the resident asked if the landlord could move him to another property on 5 February 2025 it told him that pest issues didn’t “always warrant” temporary rehousing but did not assess whether this was appropriate in the resident’s circumstances, which was unreasonable.
On 26 February 2025 the resident said he was distressed by the noise of the rats in the ceiling and could not live there much longer. He said it was impacting his mental health and causing him to feel suicidal. He said he felt the landlord was not taking any action. The landlord said it advised the resident to apply to the local housing allocations scheme and made a referral to its tenancy sustainment team. However, it did not consider whether it was appropriate to make referrals to other agencies, assess the risk or assess whether it was appropriate to temporarily rehouse him. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it was unreasonable for the landlord not to:
1. apologise for the delays in raising the survey as promised in its stage 1 decision.
2. identify actions to address other residents not allowing access, and other factors it said made it difficult to respond to the infestation.
3. uphold the complaint or offer redress given that it had taken no action to respond to the resident’s reports there were still rats in the ceiling, or his request to be rehoused.
Despite promising to do so in its stage 2 response, the landlord did not lock the communal area and request checks to deal with fly-tipping or place bait in the communal loft as agreed. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle of putting things right.

Conclusion

The resident said the ongoing pest issue impacted his mental health. He said he could hear the rats at night which caused him distress. He said he was often unable to sleep at the property. The landlord’s compensation policy said factors relevant to discretionary compensation payments may include the duration, level of impact and resident’s circumstances.
Due to the number of failures identified, the impact on the resident and the fact the landlord did not address all its failures within its complaints process, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, inclusive of the £50 already offered at stage 1. This is in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
We have ordered the landlord to instruct an expert to inspect the building and set out the cause of rats and a schedule of works in a report. We have also ordered it to complete a risk assessment and confirm whether it is appropriate to rehouse the resident. We have recommended the landlord considers implementing a pest policy.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in and around the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of rodents. It may deduct the £50 it previously offered in its stage 1 response, if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
3. arrange an inspection of the property and block of flats by a suitably qualified pest control expert. A copy of the inspection report must be shared with this Service and the resident within 10 working days of the inspection. The inspection report must:
  1. address the resident’s reports of rats in the property and comment on the cause, including if there are any access points in the building.
  2. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any actions required to address the infestation that are within the landlord’s responsibility.
4. complete a risk assessment that:
  1. considers any household vulnerabilities and identifies any measures required to reduce risk.
  2. confirms whether it is appropriate to temporarily rehouse the resident while the infestation is ongoing.
  3. confirms whether any further temporary measures are required to reduce the impact of the housing conditions on the resident.
  4. the landlord should provide a copy of this to the resident and this Service.
Within 56 days of the date of this report, the landlord must complete the actions set out in the survey, or it must confirm to the resident in writing why it cannot and any further actions it intends to take.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers implementing a pest policy.