Westminster City Council (202011584)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011584

Westminster City Council

8 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a one-bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a block. The resident’s assured tenancy began in July 2013.

Summary of events

Records provided by the landlord begin with a visit to the property by its pest control team on 15 May 2020. The case note says the resident had put her back out and the property was very messy, therefore the operative was unable to assess what proofing might be required. It was agreed with the resident that an assessment would be carried out during the next visit.
The next visit by pest control was on 28 June 2020 which is described in the case notes as a ‘rodent survey’. The note states that there had been no take on the bait that had been left and there were no droppings. Proofing advice was sent to housing repairs in relation to the boiler cupboard and some areas of skirting board. It was agreed that the case would be closed until after the proofing work.
On 15 July 2020 pest control visited the property and left three baits in the kitchen.
Pest control revisited on 29 July 2020 and noted that there was still no take on the baits but that the resident said she had seen a mouse. More bait was placed under the kitchen units.
On 12 August 2020 pest control undertook a further rodent survey where it was observed that there was still no take on the baits. The note says: ‘Used Rac foam in hole in bedroom cupboard’.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord has a note saying that the resident was very upset as the proofer did not carry out all the required works.
On 21 October 2020 there was another rodent survey. The notes says: ‘No take or recent sights/sounds. Tenant has proofed.’
On 25 November 2020 the was another rodent survey. The case history form notes that pest control had visited the resident on several occasions and had never found any evidence of rodent activity. The resident says she hears them in the walls but the way she describes them it would be something bigger than a mouse. It was speculated that it might be squirrels. However, nothing was found in the flat.
On 4 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord via its online portal. She said that she had rodents in her walls and that for the last two weeks they had been peeing inside the walls and the smell was so bad that it was affecting her breathing. The resident said she could not eat in her home anymore and she could hear them moving about and they were still getting into her kitchen. The resident said she had heart disease and her breathing was difficult anyway but that the situation had become unbearable.
On 9 December 2020 pest control visited again to carry out an inspection. The case note says that the operative spent a long time with the resident going around her flat and being shown dents or scuff marks on the flooring which the resident said was done by mice teeth and also being shown what the resident thought were holes under a kitchen unit, but none were found. The operative said he would put poison down to verify if there was a mouse infestation, but the resident refused this. It was noted that: ‘tenant was using her own mice sticky traps and nothing caught on them’. There was no evidence of mice nor any mice smells.
On 14 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again, repeating what she had said on 4 December 2020. She requested that the landlord find out how the rodents were getting into her kitchen and inside her walls.
Pest control visited again on 16 December 2020 during which the resident said she had seen a rat jump from her kitchen work surface and run under a unit near the balcony window. Two wax blocks were placed under the unit. It was noted that the case would be closed after a return visit if no evidence was found.
On 30 December 2020 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that the resident had raised five cases during the year and that there had been a total of ten inspections or proofing works. All appointments had been carried out within expected timescales. However, all of these appointments had resulted in no evidence of rodent activity being found. The landlord said that during the latest visit the resident had spoken of seeing a rat, however the inspection showed no evidence of rodent activity anywhere in the property. It noted that rats and mice are prodigious at leaving traces such as droppings and grease marks wherever they go. For a rat to have climbed onto a work surface, it is likely that it would have been present for some time in the kitchen area. As a result, it would expect to have seen at least one area of droppings or grease marks on one of its visits.
The landlord further stated that a follow up appointment had been booked for 18 January 2021 to see if the wax blocks installed during the last visit provided any evidence of rodents being present. Proofing advice had been sent to its housing team throughout the year as a further safeguarding measure and proofing works were carried out on 2 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. It concluded that it relied on physical evidence found during inspections and baiting in order for it to locate and remove rodents and in this case there was no evidence of rodent activity.
The landlord has provided some internal communication that took place on 28 January 2021. It says that the resident had a new case but has closed it herself due to her self-isolating. However, it went on to say that ten previous visits had found no evidence of rodents. It said that tenant–gained information is useful but is treated as anecdotal and not actual evidence as it operated its services on evidence–based inspections. It was suggested that it gain a proofing report from a surveyor as nothing said so far had assuaged the resident’s fears.
On 30 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said she had shown pest control the hole at the back of the drainage pipe on the balcony where it led into her kitchen. She said that pest control had twice said that a plumber or an inspector would need to look at it but that had not happened. The resident said that the proofing contractor had told her he had filled in a hole under the sink but there was no evidence of any work being done in that area and pest control later agreed that the proofing work had been poorly done. She said she had shown pest control marks on her bedframe where rodents had gnawed the wood. She said that she had filled holes herself in the boiler cupboard, bathroom and kitchen but that that was only a temporary solution.
On 1 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again and further stated that the proofing contractor had been rude to her, telling her to be quiet. She said the smell of rodent urine was disgusting and that she was now being bitten by rodent fleas.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord rang the resident. It said it was sorry that a building surveyor had not carried out an inspection but that they had tried to call her with no answer. An inspection had then been arranged for 16 February 2021.
The building surveyor reported that he could find no evidence of rodents although the resident seemed to think they were everywhere. He said that the resident had traps everywhere and had covered the floor with glue traps, such that he found it difficult to walk through the kitchen. He found no other issues with the balcony or kitchen.
On 17 March 2021 pest control provided a summary of the case to the landlord. It reiterated that no evidence of rodent activity had ever been found. Its records showed that there were no reports of rodents for the entire building for the whole of 2020 or so far in 2021. With regard to drainage, it was stated that expanding foam had been applied to the lower part of the main drain. It was also noted that there was no evidence of this foam having been attacked by rodent activity. Wider investigation of the drainage system had not taken place since there had been no evidence to substantiate an infestation. However, pest control said they had gone the extra mile and checked the block drainage interceptor chamber that day but had again found no evidence of rodent activity although it had reported that the flow looked sluggish.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord had an internal discussion about the drainage system at the block. Although the pipe on the balcony had been described as being a waste pipe, it was clarified that the balcony pipes carried rainwater only and it was doubted that they even connect to the flats internally.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. Although it did not go into specifics, the landlord said that it was sorry that the standard of customer service provided by the proofing contractor did not meet its high standards. It said the concerns the resident had raised had been discussed with its contractors. With regard to a rodent infestation, its conclusion remained that there was no current infestation. With regard to the drainage pipe on the balcony, the landlord said that the exterior pipework connections were checked during an inspection on 9 December 2020. Expanding foam had been applied to the lower part of the main pipe which remained intact. A further inspection was carried out on 17 March 2021 and a visual check found no evidence of rodent activity. However, it had been arranged for a drainage contractor to fully check the balcony drain on 19 May 2021.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord approved a quote from its contractor to: ‘cut away section of defective Cast Iron pipework. To replace with new cast iron pipework and suitable fittings. To install 100mm patch to downstream pipework so as to ensure pipe is watertight. To remove all excess spoil from site and tidy so as to leave clean, clear and 3flowing.’
On 7 June 2021 the resident advised this service that the pest issue was still ongoing and that she had pests in the wall, sofa and getting into some of her machines. The resident wanted the go ahead to engage a private pest control contractor to carry out a survey and to report on any required works. The resident has also mentioned placing cameras in the property.
As of September 2021, the works quoted for and approved in May 2021 had still not been carried out as the contractor had been unable to contact the resident. However, the available evidence suggests that some further pest control visits had taken place after the stage 2 response as the landlord had been contacted by the resident’s support worker on 6 September 2021 about a recent attendance.

Assessment and findings

Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of a rodent infestation and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law, and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
The landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of rodent infestation on numerous occasions by making appointments for its pest control team to attend. This shows that it took the resident’s reports seriously and was proactive in taking steps to investigate and resolve the situation.
Despite the resident’s assertion that the property has a rodent infestation, she has been unable to provide any evidence of it. The only evidence she has presented is marks on her bedframe and lino flooring, which pest control do not find to be consistent with rodent damage.
The position of pest control is that there is no evidence of rodent activity. This position is based on:
1. an absence of droppings and grease marks.
2. not witnessing any foul smells.
3. no takes on the bait that had been laid.
4. the resident not having caught any rodents despite having numerous traps.
5. the resident being unable to provide a specimen of the fleas that have allegedly bitten her.
6. no damage to the expanding foam that was placed in the lower drainpipe.
7. no reports of rodents from any other tenants in the block.
Given the significant level of infestation reported by the resident, it is the assessment of pest control that there would have to be some physical evidence if rodents were present. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of professional pest controllers when responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident has said that it would surely be in the interests of the whole block to remedy the rodent situation. However, as already stated, no other tenants have reported any issues of that nature.
Strictly speaking, as there was no evidence of any rodent infestation, there was no requirement on the landlord to carry out any proofing works. However, it did arrange to carry out some proofing works. It also inspected the drains and had arranged for some further work to be done to the balcony pipework. These works were agreed by the landlord to try and provide reassurance to the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustration that she believes she has a rodent problem that the landlord is failing to remedy. However, both the landlord and the Ombudsman can only rely on the presenting evidence to reach sound conclusions which are fair to all involved. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the landlord cannot be expected to utilise additional time and resources on continuing to monitor or investigate these reports further.
The resident has spoken about getting her own evidence. If the resident is able to produce physical evidence such as droppings, or rodents caught in any of her traps, or if she is able to film a sighting of a mouse or rat on her phone, then the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider that evidence afresh.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably and proportionately to the resident’s concerns.
The resident has told this Service about a recent issue in relation to being refused a new front door. However, in this report, the Ombudsman can only consider issues where the landlord has made its formal complaint response. Therefore, the resident would need to make a new complaint about this issue to the landlord in the first instance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a rodent infestation at the property.

Reasons

The landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and its pest control team attended on numerous occasions to investigate the situation. However, on the basis of there being no evidence of rodent activity, it is reasonable that the landlord has taken no further action.