From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Havering Council (202210662)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210662

Havering Council

28 March 2024


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 response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority. She resides in a one bedroom property situated within a block of flats.
  2. On 3 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report suspected rodent activity within the communal loft area. The evidence shows that a job was raised, but this was subsequently cancelled by the landlord on 3 separate occasions.
  3. On 30 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again to report that rodents were now gaining access into her property. The landlord attended on 4 July 2022 with further follow up visits to bait and assess on 11,14 and 22 July 2022.
  4. The resident raised complaints on 29 June 2022 and 2 July 2022, unhappy with the delays and lack of action by the landlord. The landlord provided its initial stage one response on 20 September 2022. Within this response, it apologised for the delay, explaining that it was currently experiencing a high number of enquiries. It acknowledged that it failed to provide its contractor with keys resulting in the delayed attendance. It also apologised for its poor communication in not returning the resident’s calls.
  5. In response to the resident’s requests for compensation due to damage caused to her washing machine by the rodents and the additional costs incurred to her, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim via her content’s insurance. In resolution of the stage one complaint the landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £50 for the overall delays and poor service.
  6. Between August 2022 – November 2022 the landlord carried out 4 further pest control visits and a CCTV drain survey. The survey identified blockages and cracks within the pipework and made recommendations to jet, de-scale and install patch liners.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 5 December 2022, this response combined multiple complaint references in order to address all outstanding issues, some of which were not included in the stage one complaint. In summary, it acknowledged that the resident did not receive the expected service. In addition to this there were communication and record keeping failures. It offered the resident £84.94 compensation for the 62 day delay leading up to the baiting of the loft, this was calculated at £1.37 per day for minimal inconvenience. It also offered to pay the £65 washing machine call out charge.
  8. The resident requested an escalation to stage three of the landlord’s complaint process. It was determined that a panel hearing was not necessary as there was sufficient evidence for the chairman of the committee to issue a decision. The decision issued on the 21 December 2022 concluded:
    1. There were failures by the service at stage one.
    2. It was recognised that the resident had suffered injustice but not injury.
    3. That the resident had spent time making complaints.
    4. The service carried out a full investigation at stage two, all failures were identified and addressed.
    5. The resident was offered appropriate compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The lease agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible to maintain, repair and renew the main structure of the property which includes the roof, stacks, gutters and water pipes.
  2. Furthermore, Landlords must consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Pest infestations, including rodent infestations, are potential category-one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. This can result in, among other things, gastro-intestinal disease (from the spread of infection), stress (because of difficulties in keeping the home clean), infections (spread by insects, rats, and mice) and nuisance. Preventative measures include blocking holes through the roof, eaves, and drainage to deny ingress to rodents.
  3. Following the resident’s initial report of a suspected infestation on 3 May 2022, the landlord appropriately raised a repair. However, the evidence shows that this was cancelled on 3 occasions. The landlord’s repair policy states that urgent repairs that are likely to cause inconvenience or nuisance will be attended to within 3 working days. According to the evidence the first attendance by pest control was not until 4 July 2022, 62 days after the landlord was notified. By which point the rodents had begun to access the resident’s property and had caused damage to the washing machine pipework and understandable distress.
  4. Within its stage one and subsequent complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that this delay was unacceptable. It admitted failing to provide the contractor with keys to the communal loft and explained that the delays were further exacerbated by a change in contractor.
  5. The evidence shows that there was a lack of accurate record keeping by the landlord, this is demonstrated by the confusion regarding access and the landlord’s inability to ascertain if certain jobs had been completed, such as unblocking the stack pipe.
  6. Clear record keeping is a core function of a landlord’s repair, and wider services and it allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding works and issues and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not restricted to, repair job notes, responses, attendances and actions.
  7. In addition to poor record keeping, the evidence shows that additional delays to remedial works were caused by a lack of internal communication. Despite the landlord receiving the CCTV drainage report on 23 September 2022 it was not looked at by the appropriate person until 18 November 2022. Furthermore, there is evidence of multiple emails between staff going unanswered. These failures have contributed to avoidable delays in carrying out preventative repairs.
  8. Following its initial attendance on 4 July 2022, the landlord did carry out regular appointments to further bait and assess. A report from 18 October 2022 states that all communal and external areas had been inspected and that there were no longer any signs of pest activity. The landlord appropriately continued to monitor, however, by this stage the infestation had been ongoing for 5 months. It is clear that this situation has had a severe impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home.
  9. The landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it aims to respond within ten working days; at stage two, within 25 working days; and at stage three, within 30 working days. The timeframes within the landlord’s policy for stage two and three complaints go against the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code. Orders have been made below in respect of this.
  10. In this case, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints in line with its policy. Its stage one response was not issued until 20 September 2022, 58 working days after receipt. This resulted in the resident having to expend time and trouble chasing. In addition to the delay the response did not fully address the issues raised by the resident and failed to provide her with an appropriate update. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £50 within its stage one response for overall delays and poor service, while this was not proportionate redress for the substantive issue it was reasonable compensation for the complaint handling.
  11. The landlord’s final response appropriately acknowledged failures at stage one and offered the resident compensation of £84.94. This was classified as ‘minimal inconvenience’ and broken down as £1.37 per day for the period between her reporting the issue and the landlord’s first attendance (62 days). It also offered the resident £65 for the call out charge she incurred because of the damage to her washing machine. While it is understandable that the resident wanted further compensation for her laundry costs during this period, it was reasonable of the landlord to refuse without evidence of receipts.
  12. In summary, it is recognised that the landlord has acknowledged some of its failings and made some attempts to put things right. However, the compensation offered is not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that its failure to act promptly resulted in the rodents entering the resident’s home, including her kitchen, where she reports finding dead rats under her new units. The resident endured 5 months of living in distressing conditions until the infestation was eradicated. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the landlord to classify this as ‘minimal inconvenience. The landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge the impact its actions have had, nor has it demonstrated learning or provided appropriate reassurances that it will improve its communication and record keeping in the future.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £615 within 4 weeks, which is broken down as follows.
    1. £50 offered at stage one for complaint handling, if not already paid
    2. £65 offered for the washing machine call out, if not already paid
    3. £500 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord should complete a self-assessment against the complaints handling code and take appropriate action to ensure its complaint handling is compliant with the code.
  3. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management to improve its record keeping and communication.
  4. The landlord is ordered to review this case and consider how it handled the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in order to identify points of learning and service improvements it can make to ensure the failures are not repeated. It should provide a summary of this review and outcomes to the resident and this Service.
  5. Contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that the above orders have been complied with and whether the below recommendations will be followed. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with its findings in relation to the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy to include pest control responsibilities and response times.