The Guinness Partnership Limited (202435422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435422

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a mice infestation in the property.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord, which also manages the communal areas of the building. She resides at the property with her 3 young children. She had reported to it that 2 of her children are autistic and one is asthmatic.
On 31 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she had reported issues with a mice infestation at the property in July 2023 and it had not resolved this. She said this was a health risk to her and her household.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 December 2023. It said that the resident had reported issues with mice on 24 July 2023 but she had already arranged for the local authority’s pest control team to attend so it did not take further action. It apologised for its delay in responding to her later reports of mice on 10 October 2023. It found the pest proofing carried out previously had use the incorrect material and resealed the property on 27 November 2023. It offered £50 as compensation for the delays.
Following the stage 1 response a local councillor wrote to the landlord on several occasions, as her representative, complaining that the mice infestation was ongoing and it had not resolved this. On 18 September 2024 it decided to escalate her complaint based on the further contact from her representative.
On 20 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In this it acknowledged delays in dealing with the matter and June 2024. Although visits in August 2024 seemed to resolve it, more recent visits indicated the issue persisted. It advised her about actions it would take to resolve it, apologised for its delays and poor communication with her and offered her £500 in compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint for this Service to investigate. Following the stage 2 response the landlord sent her a further letter on 28 April 2025. It increased the amount of compensation it offered her to £950 on the basis of further delays in arranging temporary accommodation for work at the property to take place.
The resident said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response following its further letter on 28 April 2025 and the mice infestation is still ongoing following her return to the property. As an outcome she wants it to resolve the infestation and provide additional compensation for distress and damage to her household’s personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident told this Service that the mice infestation had affected the health of her children in terms of skin infections to her youngest child, who was 2 years old at the time, from mouse bites. She said the property condition had made her other children’s asthma and autistic meltdowns worse.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her household’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, the Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s handling of mice infestation

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is our opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, throughout its handling of the mice infestation. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
The landlord’s pest control procedure confirms that it has responsibility to address reports of pests (including mice) except where there are no communal areas to the property or risk of pests spreading to other properties. Its responsive repair policy also says that it is responsible for repairs to the structure of a property including internal walls and floors.
From the available records the first report of mice in the property was made on 26 April 2023, by the resident’s mother, on her behalf. She said there were mice in the communal areas of the building and the property. She asked it to attend as soon as possible due to there being young children in the property.
The landlord’s pest control procedure says a resident should be contacted by its pest control contractor within 48 hours of the report. Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen evidence of how it responded to the report of mice on 26 April 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023 to say that its pest control contractor had been due to attend that day but had not shown up. There is also no record of how it responded to this.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 July 2023 about mice being present in the property. It told her its contractor had been out twice, but acknowledged she had not been available to grant access when they attended. It noted she had made arrangements for the local authority’s pest control team to attend on 31 July 2023 and it would raise any repairs the local authority recommended.
On 1 August 2023 the local authority emailed the landlord. It advised it:
1. There was a significant problem with mice and it had removed nests from the property.
2. The resident’s flat was clean and tidy and was not the cause of the infestation.
3. It should carry out the following repairs to prevent further pest ingress:
  1. Remove the plinths from the kitchen and seal any holes in the area.
  2. Seal the holes in the bottom corners of the tumble dryer cupboard.
  3. Remove the panel in the bathroom and seal any hole or defects, particularly around the pipework.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day. It apologised for what had happened and said it would raise the repairs the local authority had recommended under its fast track process to be completed on 4 August 2023.
The landlord’s pests procedure says that all repairs identified by a pest control contractor should be raised as a “fast track repair” however the procedure does not define this term. Its responsive repair policy only categorises repairs into “emergency” or “routine”, a fast-track repair is not given as an example of an emergency repair. This lack of consistency in terminology makes it difficult for our investigation to assess if it acted in line with its policies. In the absence of further information our interpretation of a fast-track repair is that the landlord should complete this within its routine repair timescales of 28 calendar days, but should make reasonable efforts to prioritise this to be completed sooner.
The repairs were carried out on 4 August 2023 as agreed. As this was completed 3 calendar days after the local authority’s email, this was consistent with its pest procedure to treat this as a fast-track repair.
The landlord’s notes indicate that the local authority scheduled to attend again on 21 August 2023 to check if the bait it placed had been eaten or if it had resolved the infestation. There is no evidence of the visit occurring. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 10 October 2023. She said there were further issues with mice and she had needed to replace personal belongings due to damage from the pests and soiling. She also told it she was concerned about the health of her household. It said its pest control contractor would arrange an appointment.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord raised an urgent order for its pest control contractor to contact the resident. On 19 October 2023 it asked its contractor again to follow this up as she had reported significant issues with mice. As the part of its pests procedure about its contractor contacting a resident within 48 hours to arrange an appointment was not fully within its control, in our view it took reasonable action at this time to get its contractor to attend.
The resident made her initial complaint to the landlord on 31 October 2023. She said the mice infestation had been ongoing since July 2023. She said this was a health risk to her family as her 2-year-old child had suffered mouse bites and skin infections which needed medical treatment and that her other child’s asthma was deteriorating. She said the situation was causing her and her household significant distress and anxiety.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended for an inspection on 13 November 2023. There are no records of how the landlord chased this up following its email of 19 October 2023. There is also no evidence it assessed whether it needed to prioritise its response to the resident’s report of the infestation from the information she gave in her complaint about the medical impact it was having on her household. This was not in accordance with its pest control procedure, which said it should have determined what action was necessary taking into account “any allergies, or illnesses that may be worsened by the pest or any vulnerabilities or disabilities”.
The landlord’s pest control contractor recorded the following information from its inspection on 13 November 2023:
1. It had inspected behind the kickboards of the kitchen and found the previous proofing work had been done with expanding foam, which was not suitable to prevent ingress.
2. It could not remove the kickboard beneath the sink but it would likely have a hole where the pipe goes through the floor. The landlord would need to remove the unit and proof any hole with a suitable material.
3. The resident’s flat was clean and tidy and not contributing to the infestation.
4. It recommended the landlord carry out the following repairs:
  1. Remove the kitchen units and the previous expanding foam.
  2. Reproof any holes with cement and re-fit the kitchen units once all holes were found and proofed.
The landlord recorded it attended and carried out the repair on 27 November 2023, 14 calendar days after the inspection. This was within its timescale of 28 calendar days for a routine repair. However, considering the repair should have been fast-tracked and its previous delay in responding to these reports of mice, it would have been reasonable for it to expedite the works.
In terms of the repairs the landlord carried out on 27 November 2023 it recorded that it removed the expanding foam, replaced this with timber, and covered the boxings with aluminium to block ingress. It also specified that it did not remove the kitchen units. It did not explain why it did not carry out this work, as the pest controller had recommended, or why it did not reproof the known holes with cement. The landlord should have relied on the recommendations of its pest control contractor to prevent further pest ingress or recorded any reason why it had decided to vary the recommended repairs. It did not do either, which was inappropriate.
In its stage 1 response of 5 December 2023 the landlord told the resident:
1. It had first received a report of mice in the property in April 2023 and had sent its contractor to provide baiting.
2. It did not hear further from her until 24 July 2023. At this time the local authority had already scheduled to attend so it did not send its contractor separately.
3. It accepted it delayed responding to her further report of mice on 10 October 2023 and apologised for this. It had previously proofed the property with expanding foam, which was not suitable and it replaced this on 27 November 2023.
4. It offered her £50 for the delays and said it had fed back to its repair team about not using expanding foam for proofing. It acknowledged the medical impact that she had referred to in her complaint but said it could not address this as part of the complaints process.
As set out previously we have not seen records of how the landlord responded to the report of mice in the property on 26 April 2023 to corroborate its account of events. Its complaint policy says it may not consider an issue which relates to a potential insurance claim, such as liability for personal injury. However, it should have acknowledged the distress and anxiety the resident said she was experiencing and considered whether it should offer compensation for this in line with its compensation policy. It did not do this.
Following contact by the local councillor (the representative) on the issue acting on her behalf the landlord visited the property on 4 January 2024 but did not get access. It attended again on 8 January 2024. to remove the kickboards and fill in holes whilst waiting for its pest control contractor to be available. This was in accordance with its pest procedure to fast-track repairs as it completed this within 11 calendar days, well within its 28-calendar day timescale for routine repairs.
On 11 January 2024 the local authority asked the landlord what it was planning to do to prevent mice from accessing the building as a whole and advised that preventing ingress into the resident’s property specifically was only part of the solution. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this or considered creating an action plan to assess further work to the communal areas. In line with its pest control procedure, if concerns are raised about communal areas it should have discussed this with its contractor.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 more occasions on 7 February, 16 April and 20 June 2024 respectively. On all of these visits it recorded:
1. Bait had been taken from all the traps placed.
2. The landlord had not completed its recommendations from 13 November 2023 to reproof the kitchen and it had reraised these with the landlord.
3. The resident’s flat was clean and tidy and not contributing to any infestation.
From the available records there is no evidence that the landlord took any action up until 21 June 2024 to act on its contractor’s recommendations from 13 November 2023 to remove the kitchen units to identify if there were further holes that required reproofing. As such it took approximately 7 months to raise the repair. This was not in accordance with its pest procedure which said it should raise any repairs identified by its contractor as a fast-track repair.
During this time the representative wrote to the landlord again on 18 March 2024, copying in the resident. He said the mice infestation was not resolved and he considered this was unacceptable given that there were young children in the property. He asked it to find a permanent solution including “ripping out the entire kitchen to properly seal off routes of ingress if needed”.
The landlord wrote back to the representative on 26 March 2024 saying it had investigated and had attached a response. We have not received a copy of the landlord’s response of 26 March 2024 from either party, and it is not clear whether it responded to the representative as part of its formal complaint process. Though the full content of the response on 26 March 2024 is not known the representative responded on the same day to raise his concerns that another inspection may not resolve the issue. He suggested again it should remove the kitchen units to assess if there were any other points of ingress which needed proofing. There is no evidence it responded to this, which was unreasonable.
The representative wrote to the landlord again on 25 April 2024 to complain about the lack of repairs to resolve the infestation. It told him on 2 May 2024 it was investigating and would send a response as soon as possible. We have seen no evidence it gave a substantive response to the representative or took any action under its pest procedure.
On 21 May 2024 the local authority sent the landlord a statutory notice under section 4 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act. As part of this it:
1. Said it had inspected the resident’s property and communal areas of the building and found evidence the pest infestation was still present.
2. Stated the landlord had not taken sufficient steps to resolve the infestation. It ordered the landlord to complete the following works by 21 July 2024:
  1. Instruct a competent person to carry out baiting to destroy existing mice/rat populations on the premises.
  2. Adequately block any potential entry points into the building. Including, but not limited to, blocking off gaps around service pipes and wiring and protecting areas required for ventilation with pest control mesh.
3. Attached photographs and descriptions of the issues it had identified in its inspection consisting of:
  1. Evidence of an infestation under the resident’s kitchen cupboards.
  2. Evidence of an infestation in the riser cupboards throughout the communal areas of the building, including one next to the property.
  3. A potential entry point from the external pipework from one of the communal electrical cupboards.
  4. A potential entry point from the main entrance door to the building.
  5. A potential entry point through airbricks as pest proof mesh was detached on one and inadequately fitted on others.
The landlord surveyed the building with its pest control contractor on 20 June 2024, it attended the resident’s property with the contractor on the same date (as mentioned in paragraph 32). It stated it would raise the repairs for the property from the contractor’s reports the following day.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord recorded that its contractor had made the following recommendations to resolve the infestation:
1. In relation to the building as a whole it should:
  1. Create a hardstanding around the building to prevent mice burrowing.
  2. Proof all airbricks around the building with a fine mesh.
  3. Overhaul and monitor the bin storage area.
2. In relation to individual properties, it noted activity was generally seen in the kitchen and bathrooms near the soil pipes. It recommended generally that it should:
  1. Remove kitchen units and box section to reveal soil pipe and fill any gaps with cement.
  2. Inspect the bathroom soil pipe and proof gaps with cement where required.
We have not seen a copy of the repair records for the building as a whole. However, the landlord told the local authority in its email of 31 July 2024 that it had completed the repairs recommended by its pest control contractor. It told the local authority as part of the same email it had attempted to arrange appointments to complete repairs to the resident’s property on 15 July and 29 July 2024 but had moved both at her request. It had rearranged the repair to take place on 6 August 2024.
The landlord carried out the repairs on 6 August 2024 as agreed. It removed the units and proofed any holes with cement. It recorded that it reproofed the gaps however, it noted that the surround of the kitchen stack pipe under the sink had been encased in metal. It did not specify in its records of the repair whether it removed this metal casing to reproof any hole around the pipework, as its contractor had recommended. Considering this was a significant part of the contractor’s recommendations from 13 November 2023 it would have been better if it had specifically recorded this to provide assurance this had been addressed.
In total it took the landlord approximately 9 months (267 calendar days) to carry out the repairs to remove the kitchen units and reproof further holes which its contractor had first recommended on 13 November 2023. This greatly exceeded its 28 calendar day timescales for completing routine repairs from its policy.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property again on 18 August 2024. It recorded the resident told it that she had “seen a small number of mice” since its previous visit on 20 June 2024 but the landlord had found no more holes behind the kitchen units. It noted that no bait had been taken from the traps laid on 20 June 2024 so it removed these. It advised the landlord that it had no further recommendations and a revisit was not necessary at this stage.
On 18 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to ask if its new pest control contractor would follow-up the pest infestation problem. On the same day it decided to escalate her complaint on the basis of further contact from her representative.
The local authority told the landlord on 19 September 2024 it had heard from the representative that the mice infestation was ongoing. The landlord said it carried out a joint inspection of the property on 25 September 2024 and ordered further repairs. We have not seen a copy of this inspection.
The landlord called the resident on 2 October 2024 to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation and discuss her complaint. It recorded she said:
1. It had previously pulled out the kitchen units and filled holes.
2. Its previous pest control contractor had laid bait traps up until June 2024, but she had heard nothing further since it changed contractor in September 2024.
3. She had seen mice in the property every day, there were droppings all over the flat and she had had to throw out, clothes, carpets and furniture due to mice damaging these.
4. It had attempted to attend for further repairs recently but had attended early without notice so she could not grant access. It told her it had rescheduled the repairs for 11 October 2024.
On 11 October 2024 the landlord carried out repairs at the property to fit metal plates under the units in the resident’s kitchen and seal holes. It carried out these repairs 16 calendar days after the inspection where it said it identified these. In our view, considering the previous no access appointment, this was a reasonable timescale for it to complete these repairs in line with its policy
On 18 October 2024 the landlord’s pest control contractor surveyed the building as a whole. It recorded:
1. There was a “very high pest risk severity” for the building, there were reports of mice in multiple flats and it considered mice were likely present in most flats due to ingress from the basement water pipes.
2. The gaps by the external doors of the building allow easy ingress and need proofing.
3. One external air vent did not have any proofing mesh covering it. It recorded the others were suitably proofed.
4. All the riser cupboards in the communal areas had evidence of mice activity and they were able to transition throughout the building through these.
5. From the flats it had surveyed there were multiple issues with proofing at the back of the kitchen units which mice were able to use.
From the evidence seen the local authority had reported items b. to d. (as set out in the paragraph above) to the landlord as potential issues in the notice it sent on 21 May 2024. There is no evidence it took any action to assess these findings. or considered if repairs were necessary for the approximately 5 months between this and the pest control contractor’s survey. This was not in accordance with its pest procedure which said any concerns regarding the communal areas of a building should be discussed with a pest control contractor or have repairs raised. Though it said it carried out repairs in relation to item c. following the notice from the local authority it did not complete this work thoroughly.
The landlord said its pest control contractor visited the resident’s property on 8 November 2024. We have not seen records of this attendance or what work was carried out, notwithstanding this her account of events agrees this visit happened. This was 51 calendar days after she had reported new concerns about mice on 19 September 2024. There is no evidence of when the contractor arranged any appointment with her or whether the landlord took any action to follow this up. This was not accordance with its pest control procedure as its pest control contractor should have arranged an appointment within 48 hours of the report.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2024. In this it:
1. Apologised for the delay in its pest control contractor attending between February and June 2024. It said that though it was unable to find evidence it had attended to carry out pest proofing during that time it had completed this on 6 August 2024.
2. Said it had closed the case on 14 August 2024 after the follow-up found no further issues. It accepted there was a delay in its response after her further reports of mice on 18 September 2024 until its new pest control contractor attended on 8 November 2024 and apologised for this.
3. Said its contractor’s attendance on 8 November 2024 had found evidence of further pest activity and recommended further proofing work. It said it would remove the kitchen units to check for new entry points and seal these.
4. Accepted there had been delays and poor communication from it. It said though its previous contractor had recommended that it remove the kitchen units from the property on 2 occasions before June 2024 it did not do this as it “did not want to cause further distress”. It acknowledged it should have taken the recommended action sooner.
5. Offered £500 as compensation (of which £25 was for its complaint handling), said it had given feedback to its repair team and would contact her in the next 5 working days to make an appointment for the further proofing work.
The landlord’s response did not make any reference to the damage to the resident’s personal belongings which she had referred to when it discussed the stage 2 escalation with her. She contacted it on 21 November 2024 and said its offer of compensation did not reflect this and asked it to reimburse her for her expenses in replacing items which the mice had damaged including:
1. Her sofa, in which mice had nested.
2. The lounge and bedroom carpets which mice had eaten in places.
3. Storage boxes, in which mice had nested.
4. Her children’s toys which had been chewed by mice.
5. Towels, blankets and clothing which had been chewed through by mice.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 21 November 2024. This was unreasonable. In line with its compensation policy, it should have considered providing reimbursement for a quantifiable loss which was caused by a service failure on its part. If it needed further evidence of the value of the items, or that this damage had been caused by its service failure, it should have told her and given an opportunity for her to provide this.
Following the stage 2 response there is no record of when it contacted the resident to carry out further proofing work but from her account of events it attended to carry out the repair on 12 December 2024. She said in her email of 12 December 2024 the contractor who attended said the landlord had only instructed them to replace the metal plates under the kitchen units. The resident said they did not remove the kitchen units to check for further holes that needed proofing. This was unreasonable, the landlord should have arranged the repairs that it agreed in its stage 2 response and made sure these happened.
The landlord’s pest control contractor surveyed the building again on 20 December 2024, as well as the resident’s flat. It found that there was still a “very high pest risk severity” for the building and:
1. Repairs had not been carried out to the riser cupboards in the communal areas and there was evidence mice were still transitioning through these to access flats.
2. There was evidence of significant mice activity in her property, and it had found a mouse nest.
3. The infestation had not been effectively controlled over several years and would require work over 3 days and access to all flats to carry out treatment and proofing.
The landlord’s handling of the proofing issue with communal riser cupboards was not in accordance with its pest procedure. The local authority and its contractor had advised it of a potential issue with pests in the communal areas on 2 occasions before this, on 21 May 2024 and 17 October 2024. There is no evidence it assessed the reported concern or raised any repairs over an approximately 7-month period.
The landlord noted in its internal emails on 24 December 2024, based on the resident’s emails and its pest control contractors report, it should remove the kitchen units in the property and carry out proofing work. From the available records there is no evidence it took any further action until 14 April 2025, when it contacted her to advise that it would need to temporarily move her to a hotel for 4 nights from 28 April 2024 so that repairs could take place.
In accordance with the landlord’s decant policy it should offer temporary accommodation to residents when major repairs to the property are necessary which cannot be done safely or effectively while a resident is living in the home. Its pest control contractor had advised the repairs would likely take several days in its survey of 20 December 2024. We have seen no evidence that it assessed if temporarily moving the resident was necessary, or had any discussion with her about this, for approximately 4 months. This was unreasonable.
The landlord told this Service there was a delay in arranging the temporary move as the resident had specific requirements which delayed finding accommodation. From the available records the resident’s mother had contacted it on 15 and 17 April 2025 to raise concerns that a hotel would not be suitable for the resident as she had 2 autistic children and 2 dogs. We have not seen that this had any material impact on the time taken for it to begin the repairs as the temporary move still began on 28 April 2025, as it had advised in its email of 14 April 2025.
As such the landlord did not begin the repairs it said it would carry out from its stage 2 response of 20 November 2024 until 28 April 2025, approximately 5 months (159 calendar days) later. In our view, considering the previous delays in arranging temporary accommodation and what it had told the resident in its stage 2 response, this was an unreasonable timescale.
The landlord sent the resident a further response on 28 April 2025. In this it explained as follows:
1. It had intended to complete the repairs it had agreed in its stage 2 response by the end of December 2024. However, from its pest control contractor’s survey on 20 December 2024 it had recommended major works over 3 to 5 days to achieve a long-term solution.
2. “Due to logistics in arranging temporary accommodation” it did not begin these repairs until 28 April 2025. It recognised that the repairs took significantly longer than expected.
3. It was scheduled to complete the repairs on 6 May 2025 and it would contact her after this to check the infestation was resolved.
4. It offered a further £450 in compensation (for a total of £950) for the additional delays and distress caused.
The landlord recorded it completed the repairs on 6 May 2025. The resident confirmed she moved back into the property that day but has told this Service that she has continued to hear mice within the walls and its pest control contractor was scheduled to visit the property again. We will expect the landlord to have created an action plan, following its repairs, to address her concerns that the mice infestation is ongoing.
In terms of the impact there was a recurrent mice infestation in the property for an approximately 24-month period from April 2023 to April 2025. Though this was not constant the records show that the resident, or her representative, frequently told the landlord there were issues with mice activity during this time which was confirmed by its pest control contractors. The records also show that she had regularly expressed concerns about the mice soiling the property, damaging her personal belongings and causing distress to her and her children.
In line with our guidance on remedies we also consider there were aggravating factors in this case. The resident, and her representative, had informed the landlord at several points throughout the complaint that she had young children in the property and that she was concerned that the mice infestation was worsening their health conditions. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took this into account when handling the infestations or considered if it could mitigate the impact on them. Whilst we cannot comment on whether the landlord’s handling of the repair made the resident’s or her children’s health conditions worse our view is that the impact on her in terms of distress and inconvenience was likely to be significant.
Leaving aside the £25 it offered for complaint handling, the landlord offered the resident £925 for its handling of the mice infestation. As set out previously it did not respond to her request for reimbursement for her damaged personal belongings. We consider its offer was not proportionate to the extent of the failings in this case. There were a series of failures over a significant period of time in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation. Our view is that this series of failures caused a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional financial remedy amongst other actions to resolve the issues.
In summary there were very significant failings by the landlord in its handling of the mice infestation and the associated repairs in that it:
1. Did not keep adequate records for how it responded to the reports of a mice infestation and the associated repairs.
2. Did not arrange for its pest control contractor to inspect the property in a timely manner when issues with mice were first reported on 26 April 2023.
3. Carried out the proofing repairs on 4 August 2023 with an unsuitable material to prevent mice entering the property.
4. Delayed responding to the resident’s further reports of mice in the property on 10 October 2023 and did not take account of the medical impact she said this was having on her household.
5. Did not complete its pest control contractor’s recommendation from 13 November 2023, to remove the kitchen units and proof any further holes, for approximately 9 months. It also significantly delayed raising this repair despite its contractor and the representative saying this should be done.
6. Did not take action to prevent mice ingress through the communal areas of the building after the local authority advised it to do so on 11 January 2024.
7. Did not take sufficient action to adequately block any potential entry points into the building for approximately 5 months after the local authority ordered it to address this on 21 May 2024.
8. Did not assess carrying out repairs to proof the communal rise cupboards for approximately 7 months, despite the local authority identifying this as a concern on 21 May 2024 and its pest control contractor’s recommendations.
9. Delayed responding to the resident’s further reports of mice in the property on 18 September 2024 and did not carry out a visit for 51 calendar days.
10. Did not start the further repairs to proof the property it agreed in its stage 2 response of 20 November 2024 for approximately 5 months. It also did not take action to assess if it was necessary to temporarily move the resident out of the property during the repair for approximately 4 months.
11. Did not respond to the resident’s request to reimburse her for the damage caused to her personal belongings from the mice infestation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first complained to the landlord on 31 October 2023, it acknowledged the complaint on 23 November 2023. This was not in accordance with the principles of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which said a landlord must acknowledge a complaint within 5 days of receipt to set out its understanding of it and the outcome the resident was seeking. The version of the Code that was in place during the time of the events complained about was published on 9 March 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 December 2023, 26 working days later. Though its response stated she made the complaint to its chief executive on 21 November 2023 from its records it is clear the same complaint had been made to, and logged by, its complaints team on 31 October 2023. As such this was not in accordance with the timescales of the Code which said a landlord must provide the stage 1 response within 10 working days of it being logged.
As set out previously from 28 December 2023 the resident’s local councillor began writing to the landlord on her behalf as her representative. Its complaint policy says it will accept complaints from people who have been authorised to act on a resident’s behalf, such as a councillor or MP. From the available records there is no indication that the representative’s authority to act on the resident’s behalf was ever in dispute.
The Code was updated in 2024, the new Code came into effect from 1 April 2024.
As part of the representative’s email on 25 April 2024 he complained that the resident had told him the mice infestation was still ongoing. He told the landlord he was “prepared to give [it] one last chance” before he recommended that the resident write to this Service. In the context of the previous stage 1 response, and the reference to this Service, in our view it should have been reasonably apparent to it he was requesting to escalate the complaint. Though it told him on 2 May 2024 it was investigating and would provide him with a response we have seen no evidence it escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process at this time. This was not in accordance with the Code which said if the complaint is not resolved to a resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 unless an acceptable exclusion ground applies.
The landlord decided to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 18 September 2024 following further contact from the representative. It contacted the resident on 2 October 2024 to define her complaint, what the outstanding issues were and what she was seeking as an outcome. This took place 13 working days after the escalation request. This was not in accordance with the Code which said the landlord must acknowledge and define the stage 2 escalation within 5 working days of the request being made.
The landlord told the resident on 19 October 2024 it would need to extend its stage 2 response for 20 working days due to the need to gather further information. This was acceptable in line with the Code. This said a landlord must issue its final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of it being acknowledged. However, it specifies a landlord can extend its stage 2 response by up to 20 working days, provided it informs the resident of this and its expected timescale for responding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2024, 36 working days after it acknowledged the escalation request. This timescale was in accordance with the Code when its extension is taken into account.
The landlord acknowledged its delay in contacting the resident following the escalation request to define and acknowledge the complaint. It apologised for this and offered her £25. It did not acknowledge the other failings identified above nor offer any remedy for these. In the Ombudsman’s view, compared to our guidance for remedies, this was not proportionate to the failings we have identified. As such we have ordered it to pay an additional financial remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 4 weeks of this determination:
1. Provide a copy of this decision to its executive team and ask it to issue the resident with a written apology. This must recognise the landlord’s delays in its response to the mice infestation and the associated complaint as well as the impact this had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,575 in compensation comprising:
  1. £1,500 (inclusive of the £925 it previously offered) in compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by its handling of the mice infestation and associated repairs to the property.
  2. £75 (inclusive of the £25 it previously offered) in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Request evidence of the value and age of the personal items which the resident states were damaged. It must then consider whether it will offer a contribution under its compensation policy or provide details to the resident of its liability insurer. It must write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination setting out how it will handle the claim for damaged items.
4. Fully inspect the property for any ongoing mice infestation, any further points of pest access, and any further repairs required to proof these. It must also provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and this Service.
5. Fully inspect the communal areas for any ongoing wider infestation. If there is evidence of a wider infestation, it must draft an action plan for how it will address this and provide a copy of this to the resident and this Service.
6. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.
The landlord must carry out a management review of the resident’s case. This review must be carried out by someone independent of the service area, the review and actions arising from it should be shared with the landlord’s governing board. The review should consider:
1. How the delays in responding to the mice infestation occurred in this case and its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to and monitors reports of pests. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated and responded to in a timely manner. In doing so the landlord should have regards to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (published on our website).
2. Its engagement with the local authority during this case.
3. Any other complaints it has received in relation to pests since 2023/4 up until the date of this determination and its handling of these (including any issues about damage to a resident’s personal belongings).
4. Any changes which are necessary to its pest procedure, responsive repairs policy or any other relevant policy or procedure.
5. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings to the management review specified in the paragraph above. The landlord must provide this report within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.