London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202325383)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325383

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A pest infestation.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord is a housing association and has recorded that the resident is elderly.
3. On 24 November 2020 the resident called the landlord and said she had reported hearing mice scurrying around at night but had not heard back from it. It raised a job for a pest control contractor to attend. Its records say it raised a further job on 12 January 2021 which it marked completed on 11 March 2021. Its repairs records say it raised a repair for the communal bin store doors, which were not closing, on 18 May 2021 and marked this completed on 14 April 2022. On 9 June 2021 the pest control contractor recommended to the landlord that it attend on a quarterly programme.
4. Between 24 August 2021 and 25 July 2022, the resident continued to report mice activity in the wall and ceiling cavities, and in the bin store, to the landlord. Its pest control contractor continued treating for mice during this time. The landlord raised a repair to proof, or fill in, all holes and entry points for mice in the bin store on 18 August 2022. It marked the repair as “completed no action”. Between 27 October 2022 and 8 November 2022, it raised multiple repairs for the bin store doors, which were not closing properly. On 23 November 2022 the resident called the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
   1. There being mice in the communal areas for over 2 years.
   2. Her housing officer not communicating with her and not providing updates but simply saying he would chase it for her.
   3. Having been told by the pest control contractor that the landlord did not want to pay to get the issue resolved properly.
5. On 29 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again and said it had not acknowledged her complaint. She also said it had failed to complete repairs to the bin store doors, which was where the mice were getting into the block. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 30 November 2022. It raised a repair for a quote to repair the bin store doors on 5 December 2022. On the same day it provided its stage 1 response, in which it:
   1. Said it had spoken to the resident and had contacted its pest control contractor, who would visit that week to quote for the proofing works.
   2. Explained it had raised a repair for the bin store doors and would contact its contractor about this for an appointment date.
   3. Said it would update her by 12 December 2022.
6. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 8 December 2022 and said the mice activity was getting worse. It replied to say the pest control contractor had not been able to attend but would the following week. She emailed it again on 13 December 2022 for an update, then asked to escalate her complaint on 31 January 2023. She said it was not providing updates or resolving the infestation, which was negatively affecting her sleep and mental health. She asked to escalate her complaint again on 17 April 2023. The resident called the landlord on 2 May 2023 and 9 June 2023 to chase pest control and repairs to the bin store. Its notes say it spoke to the pest control contractor, which advised it had treated the communal areas, but that the issue was the bin store. The contractor said the broken doors allowed mice in, and that a pipe from the store to the building was giving them a way in. The landlord’s records noted on 26 July 2023 that the bin store doors needed to be replaced.
7. On 3 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, in which it:
   1. Said its pest control contractor was not able to identify the source of access for the mice. However, it would complete proofing works in the bin store then arrange a CCTV survey of the drainage system.
   2. Confirmed it had asked for a quote for a regular pest treatment programme.
   3. Explained it had visited in June 2023 and had received quotes for replacing the bin store doors and it was reviewing these.
   4. Said its housing officer would continue to monitor the situation and update residents.
   5. Apologised for its service failure regarding pest control and offered £180 compensation for this, and £100 for poor complaint handling.
8. Between 18 August 2023 and 25 March 2024 the resident continued to report mice activity. The landlord’s pest control contractor continued to attend, and the landlord raised repairs for the bin store doors. The resident has told the Ombudsman that, at the date of this report, it has been 6 weeks since the last mice activity at the block. However, she said she remains concerned as the landlord is not maintaining or cleaning the bin store.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into the tenancy agreement an obligation for the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. Under its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of communal areas within and external to a block, including bin stores. It is also responsible for pest control in communal areas and where there is evidence of a wider infestation, including proofing works. Under its policy it will complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
10. Throughout the period of this complaint the landlord accepted it was responsible for communal pest control, in line with its repairs policy. It correctly raised multiple attendances from its pest control contractors and was entitled to rely on their expertise in how to try to resolve the issue. While its pest control contractor recommended a cyclical approach, with visits every quarter, there is no evidence the landlord agreed to this. Within its stage 2 response, 2 years after this recommendation, it said it had asked for a quote for regular visits.
11. Regarding repairs however the landlord has been slow to act and has not followed its repairs policy timeframe, for proofing works and repairs to the bin store. It raised its first repair in May 2021 and did not mark it completed until nearly a year later, without any detail of what, if any, repairs it completed which was a failing. Its records show it did not raise a proofing repair until August 2022, which it marked no action. It is therefore again not clear what, if any, repairs it completed. In October and November 2022, it raised several repairs for the bin store doors, but there is no detail within its records if it completed any of these repairs. When the resident said it had not, the landlord correctly raised a new repair for a quote, but the evidence shows it never approved the works, which was a further failing. This was despite it saying within it stage 2 response that it would review the quote it had received.
12. Within its stage 1 response the landlord provided a plan to obtain a quote for proofing works and to chase its contractor regarding repairs to the bin store door. However, it failed to actively pursue both issues. This led to the resident asking to escalate her complaint twice. By June 2023, over 2 and a half years after the resident first reported mice, the issue was still ongoing. The landlord had been advised by its pest control contractor that it had done its part, but the issue remained due to outstanding repairs to the bin store, which was the point of entry. Had the landlord acted quicker, and in line with its repairs policy timeframe, the mice issue may have been resolved quicker. Surprisingly within its stage 2 response 2 months later, the landlord said its contractor could not identify the point of entry. This was incorrect based on its earlier records.
13. The resident also raised within her complaint that the landlord’s communication had been poor. She said her named housing officer did not provide meaningful updates or information. There is evidence of a lack of contact from the landlord from the need for the resident to have chased it for updates. For example, there is no evidence the landlord contacted her about the issues, or her complaint between 9 December 2022 and 17 April 2023, despite her escalation request. The landlord has also not provided any evidence of any updates it provided following it stage 2 response, despite this being one of its actions.
14. Positively within its stage 2 response the landlord recognised there had been a service failing, apologised, and offered £180 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
15. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord correctly understood and accepted its responsibilities for pest control and arranged treatments. However, it failed to meet its policy timeframe for proofing and repairs to the bin store doors. This meant the pest treatment’s effect was limited as its pest control contractor advised it. In addition to having taken too long to resolve the issue, its communication was poor, and its repairs records lacked detail or evidence of its actions. The effect meant the resident had to suffer with pest activity, affecting her sleep and causing her distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for a period of over 4 years. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,200 additional compensation to the resident. This amount represents £300 per year for 4 years and is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

16. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged this within its 5 working day timeframe under its complaints policy. It provided its stage 1 response within its 10-working day policy timeframe, and in compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
17. After the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 31 January 2023 the landlord failed to do so, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.9 of the Code. This caused her to need to ask it again on 17 April 2023, but the landlord failed to acknowledge escalation. It provided it stage 2 response after 128 working days against a policy timeframe of 20 working days. This was an unreasonable delay which was also in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Under its policy, and the Code, the landlord could have asked for an extension of time to provide its response, but it failed to do so. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £100 compensation for poor complaint handling. However, it failed to apologise for this or say how it had learnt from the complaint.
18. The landlord did not display the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and there was maladministration. To reflect the added inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation to the resident.

Determination

19. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A pest infestation.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

20. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £1,300 made up of:
       1. £1,200 for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling a pest infestation.
       2. £100 for the added inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm that it has completed repairs to, or has replaced, the bin store doors.
    4. Confirm whether it now has a cyclical programme for pest control in place at the block. If it does not it is to explain why not.
    5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord review the frequency of its cleaning and inspections of the bin store and consider whether more frequent cleaning or removal of bulk waste is needed.

Paragraph 49 investigation

22. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included residents “having to chase the landlord to act on what should at times be straightforward requests, leading to them raising complaints, repeatedly trying to get the landlord to understand the seriousness of the situation and often being met with inaction”. We also found that “parts of the organisation did not prioritise listening to residents and acting on their concerns.”
23. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time the report was published, no orders or recommendations about complaint handling have been made in addition to those made within the special report.