Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Birmingham City Council (202304897)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304897

Birmingham City Council

25 February 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 the resident’s:
    1. Report of a mice infestation in the block.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a joint leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority, since 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 1st floor.
  2. The resident’s local MP has liaised with us and the landlord on her behalf. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and her MP are referred to as coming from the resident.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 May 2023 about a mice infestation in the block. She said other residents had reported these issues previously and it had a statutory duty to deal with it. There were mice in the property, including the kitchen cupboard, and there were droppings in the electricity cupboard just outside her door. She said this showed the mice were in the pipework and communal areas, which meant individual action within the property would not help as the infestation was in the fabric of the building.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 16 May 2023, the landlord said an inspection of the block noted activity in the riser and mechanical and electrical board (MEB) cupboards on the 1st and 2nd floors. As a proactive measure it baited all the floors and the boxed in pipework on the ground floor, which it had identified as the potential ingress point. It said a follow up visit was scheduled to inspect the results of this action and treat further if necessary.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 May 2023, saying the landlord had not inspected the property or blocked holes where mice might be entering. She said it was not just the 1st and 2nd floors and residents from other floors had also complained. She said a comprehensive investigation needed to be done. She wanted compensation for the loss of food and other items due to the long-term presence of mice in the property.
  6. Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 July 2023. It apologised for any distress caused and said pest control had visited the block in mid-May 2023 and early–June 2023. On the first visit all dry risers and MEB cupboards were baited on all floors as a proactive measure. On the 2nd visit, takes were noted on bait points on the ground and 1st floor MEB cupboards and the boxed in pipework at the rear of the block. All baits were replenished and the amount of bait ingested should have controlled the activity on site.
  7. The landlord said pest control had visited the block again that morning and noted takes on the same points as before, removed a dead mouse from the ground floor cupboard, and replenished the ground and 1st floor baits. It said there had been no take at all from the baits on floors 4 to 7. It said as a leaseholder the resident was responsible for the internal repairs and maintenance of the property, including blocking up holes to deter mice; it would not enter the property to do this. It said financial compensation for the loss of food and other items should be claimed via her contents insurance.
  8. The landlord concluded by signposting the resident to the British pest controllers’ association and national pest technicians’ association, and offered her the option to collect free mouse poison from it. It confirmed that it had fully investigated the issue, and in addition to the 3 visits already conducted, a further visit was scheduled for 2 months’ time by pest control.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to us on 9 August 2023, saying the landlord did major communal works 6 years ago which caused the mice infestation. She thought it should have investigated the holes inside the property where the mice were entering, and it should have kept her informed of its investigation of the block. She was also unhappy with the delay in its stage 2 response. She sought compensation for the inconvenience and financial loss caused by the mice in the property. 

Assessment and findings

Reports of a mice infestation

  1. The resident believes the mice infestation was caused by communal works 6 years ago. It is not our role to investigate or establish the underlying cause of the infestation. Further, there are time limits in place for when a complaint issue must be raised to the landlord and referred to us. Therefore, these works are not considered further in this report. Instead, we have considered what the landlord’s obligations were and how it responded to the resident’s reports, to assess if the actions it took were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The resident said other tenants had reported the issue to the landlord and she knows the landlord compensated another tenant. She has asked us if she has to take legal action against the landlord to receive the same. We are unable to offer advice on the resident’s legal options and so she should seek independent advice on this.
  3. Further, our investigation and findings are based on the individual circumstances of the case and any awards we make are specific to them. The landlord’s offer of compensation to other residents for the same issue is not treated as a precedent for this reason. This investigation does not assess reports made by other residents, but consideration is given for the purpose of understanding the wider context of the complaint.
  4. Repair reports to the landlord can be made by phone and online. We have not seen evidence that the resident logged a report of mice infestation with the landlord (either sightings inside or outside the property) until May 2023. This was after it had already logged, and was working on, a report of mice infestation for the whole block.
  5. The resident said she tried previously to report the presence of mice in the block via a telephone call and was unsuccessful. She also had the option of reporting the issue by completing an online form on the landlord’s website, but she did not do this. Therefore, for the purpose of this investigation, we have treated May 2023 as the date of the resident’s report.
  6. As the freeholder, the landlord has limited repair obligations for a property where the lease was sold. It is responsible for repairs and maintenance of communal areas but not generally for the property itself. It has no contractual obligations for repairs and maintenance within the property, including pest control.
  7. The actions taken by the landlord were, therefore, in the communal areas which it was responsible for. It did not enter the property to investigate as the resident is a leaseholder and it did not have an obligation to do so. While she believes the issue is endemic and the infestation is within the fabric of the building, this is not something we can assess. For this reason, while it could be possible that the communal pest infestation affected the property, it is not a conclusion we can make. This would need to be assessed by an independent professional, such as an insurer.
  8. In handling reports of mice infestation in communal areas, our expectation for landlords is to arrange timely inspections and take identified repair action. The landlord reported the problem to the council’s pest control team, which arranged an inspection of all floors in the block. Areas of concern were identified, with plans made to address potential ingress points. Riser and electrical cupboards on all floors were baited, with follow up visits arranged. Repeat visits were conducted to replenish baits and assess their effectiveness. These plans and actions were taken over a reasonable period from the resident’s report. This is in line with our expectations.
  9. The landlord told us that, following these steps, it has not received any further reports of mice from any tenants, including the resident. The resident recently advised us that she had removed dead mice from the property but, as noted above, the landlord is not responsible for pest control inside the property. The landlord has taken action to address the infestation in the communal areas. It also appropriately provided advice by signposting the resident and offered free mouse poison. This is in line with our expectations.
  10. If there are continued issues in the communal areas, the resident should report this to the landlord so that it is aware of the problem. It can then decide whether further investigation is needed and take action accordingly. We expect the landlord to link up reports it receives about pests to assess the extent and severity of the issue, but it cannot do this if residents do not report issues.
  11. The resident said the landlord should have kept her informed of its investigations. We expect it to keep residents informed and updated on the plan it has for addressing an infestation, including actions taken. However, in this instance where the resident had not made a report to the landlord, it cannot reasonably be expected to communicate on an issue she had not reported. However, in the future, the landlord should consider whether it would be appropriate to keep all residents informed, regardless of individual reports, of action taken for pest control in communal areas.
  12. In light of the above, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation in the block. Given we have concluded the landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances, there are no grounds to award compensation for damage to belongings or loss of food. Should the resident wish to pursue this further, she should consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about a standard of service provided, actions taken, or not taken, which affect a service user. It set out timeframes for response, 15 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It said where a response could not be provided within the stipulated timeframe, it would write to the resident with an explanation and revised timescales.
  2. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in time, but did not do so at stage 2. It also did not write to the resident with an explanation or revised deadline. In fact, it did not contact the resident at all about her stage 2 complaint, until she contacted us and we intervened. The additional time and effort should not have been necessary.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 27 days after it was due. Therefore, as the landlord did not respond to the resident in time, we have found service failure in its handling of the formal complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology for its failure. It is further ordered to pay the resident £100 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s suggested financial redress for instances of service failure, detailed in its published remedies guidance.
  4. On 8 February 2024, we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024, and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
  5. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a mice infestation in the block.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £100 compensation in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.