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

Ipswich Borough Council (202326517)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326517

Ipswich Borough Council

6 May 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. the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
    2. the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with her landlord that began on 1 March 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom house. During the complaints process, the resident told the landlord she was disabled.
  2. On 22 May 2023, during a site visit for a separate matter, the resident reported rats were coming from her neighbour’s property. The landlord said it looked at the neighbour’s garden from the resident’s window and that it appeared “tidy”. The resident made 2 further reports (14 June and 23 June 2023) of rats at her property. She reported that they had damaged her washing machine and sofa. The landlord emailed the council’s environmental health department on 20 June 2023 to notify it of rats coming from the neighbour’s property.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 24 June 2023. She said:
    1. she was concerned about a rat infestation that she had previously reported. She said she had to get rid of 15 rats a month.
    2. she felt this had impacted her health because she caught “salmonella a few years back”. And the landlord had not helped her despite her being disabled and reporting this.
    3. the landlord had not done anything for 3 months about the rats and this delay was responsible for the damage to her washing machine and sofa. She wanted to be compensated £1,800 for this.
    4. she was concerned the rats were chewing the cement around the drainpipe.
    5. she had been told by the landlord that the infestation was her responsibility. But when the exterminator called her, they said this would be “impossible” for her to fix.
    6. she thought her neighbour was responsible for the infestation because they used the alleyway as a toilet, their house was overcrowded, and their garden was “filthy”.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2023. It said:
    1. it was unable to compensate the resident because pest control measures within the property would be her responsibility. And the council was responsible for addressing pest control matters in communal spaces.
    2. it would be happy to approve pest control works to deter rats externally via bait or poison boxes. If the resident wanted this, she could confirm this to her housing officer.
    3. it acknowledged the resident thought the source of the infestation was her neighbour. It said the property was privately owned so it had reported the issue to the council’s environmental health department to investigate further.
    4. it shared a summary of the contact the resident had with her housing officer. And said it was satisfied that it made efforts to investigate and report the issue accordingly.
    5. it was happy to allocate an alternative staff member to be the housing officer if this was the resident’s preference.
  5. The resident continued to express that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said it ought to be accountable for the infestation, and if diseases spread that would be its fault. As a result, the landlord escalated her complaint on 14 July 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023 and said:
    1. it was sorry it was unable to resolve her concerns and understood infestations could be traumatic. It wanted to inspect the external aera of the home to try and establish possible entry points.
    2. it was committed to supporting the resident to find a solution for her “peace of mind”. But it needed to manage her expectations about what it could “reasonably and practically do with consideration of the obligations in the tenancy agreement”.
    3. it was committed to offer to treat the “offending areas” outside her home through pest control measures at its own cost.
    4. it confirmed the housing officer was in regular communication with her from January 2023 about separate matters. And rats were raised as a concern in May 2023. After which, it was under the impression the resident was talking about a historic issue. It apologised if there had been a misunderstanding and that there needed to be a focus on how to resolve current issues.
    5. it would explore her concerns further through the environmental health team as she felt it was a widespread infestation. If it could identify the cause, then it would address this.
    6. it could not agree to compensating her for £1,800. But it would offer £150 as a gesture of goodwill for stress and anxiety the “issues had caused”. And that it hoped this might assist her to arrange her own pest control measures.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 August 2023. She said the property had been “destroyed” because of the landlord’s 3 month delay. And that it ignored her reports about the rat infestation and the behaviour of her neighbours. This included letting the rubbish build up, using the communal alleyway as a toilet, and overcrowding.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 3 response on 14 September 2023 and said:
    1. when the resident raised concerns about rats in May 2023 it had arranged to visit to discuss planned works.
    2. pest control measures are the responsibility of the resident except in exceptional circumstances, where a resident could not fulfil this, and it would consider providing additional support. It recognised that its previous correspondence ought to have been clearer about its obligations.
    3. it had checked for entry points, but none had been found. However, as her officer had agreed to do more, it ought to have taken further action after the visit.
    4. it clarified her neighbour’s property was privately owned but it would see what more it could do.
    5. it had visited the resident recently and had offered her £500 compensation Although pest control is a resident’s responsibility, it did not follow up on its offer to see what more it could do as promptly as expected.
    6. the wider issues around refuse management concerning her neighbour had been referred to the public protection team, who are investigating the issues around occupancy levels and nuisance behaviour.
    7. it was also working on an educational piece of work for local residents on effective waste control measures, as significant street litter has been noted. And letters would be delivered shortly.
    8. it did not deem it reasonable or proportionate, based on the situation that had arisen, to compensate her £1,800 for her damaged belongings.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us on 11 December 2023 because:
    1. she felt the stage 3 officer had been unprofessional and “told lies to cover up their findings”.
    2. the rat infestation “was horrific and [she] should not have been ignored”.
    3. she wanted the landlord to apologise and pay her an additional £700 as a “compromise” for the damage to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about her neighbours concerning overcrowding, poor refuse management, and the communal alleyway being used as a toilet.
  2. We have not investigated this matter because the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord. Therefore, these issues would be a matter for the local council under its wider executive functions to consider rather than its landlord function. Further, the resident did not refer these matters to us to investigate. However, she may seek a resolution through the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), who have jurisdiction to investigate these matters, should she wish to escalate these matters further.

Pest infestation

  1. The landlord does not have a specific policy that deals with pest infestations. The tenant handbook refers residents to the council’s environmental services for nuisances related to vermin. Its website states it does not provide pest control services. It advises individuals that if pests are encountered, they must contact a local pest control contractor.
  2. Landlords are responsible for pest infestations if they were caused by a repair they are obligated to fix. If this is the case, it is responsible for carrying out the necessary repairs and remedying any associated pest infestation.
  3. The resident explained that she thought there was a rat infestation coming from her neighbour’s property. The resident and the landlord agree that she reported this during a site visit for a separate repair issue on 22 May 2023. The landlord said it viewed the neighbour’s garden from the upstairs window of the resident’s property. And found it to be “tidy”. It said it did not take further action at this stage because the resident had referred to this matter as a historical issue rather than a live issue.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord made a record of the resident’s comments or the advice it gave during its visit. That it did not maintain a record of the visit was a failure. As such, we are unable to conclude from the evidence available whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances to respond the resident’s report.
  5. Our spotlight report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ explains that the quality of record keeping assists landlords to offer effective services that are based on clear and good quality information. It states: “Records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. A record should:
    1. make clear who created it, and when.
    2. be created as close as possible to the time of any events it is documenting.
    3. be clear, specific, and unambiguous, and not include jargon or abbreviations.
    4. include all relevant information, but not irrelevant opinion or speculation.
    5. clearly state any decision made, and the reasons for it. This includes any decision to take no further action.”
  6. The resident made a further report on 14 June 2023. She explained that the rat infestation was ongoing, and her washing machine and sofa had been damaged. She said she felt ignored because she had already reported the problem during May 2023. When the landlord responded, it apologised and asked for photographs of the infestation and the damage. It said it would seek approval for pest control once it knew “where the rats [were] coming from”.
  7. The landlord contacted the council’s environmental health team 6 days later. This was because it believed the rat infestation to be coming from the resident’s neighbour, and they were not one of its tenants. This was based on the information from the reports made by the resident.
  8. While this was not an unreasonable action to take, the landlord should have also inspected the resident’s property to ensure it had made an evidence-based conclusion about the cause of the rat infestation. This would have provided clarity about who was responsible for taking further action and informed its approach to the matter. Specifically, it would have also evidenced if it held no responsibility towards the rat infestation. Had it done so, it would have been in a better position to advise the resident about what it could reasonably do to address the problem at the earliest opportunity. This was a failure.
  9. In the resident’s complaint on 26 June 2023, she reported that rats had chewed through the cement around the external drainpipe. There is no evidence that the landlord took further action to investigate this report. The landlord is responsible for repairing the exterior and structure of the property, including external drainpipes under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As such, it ought to have inspected and repaired the drainpipe and assessed whether this was contributing to a rat infestation inside the resident’s property. That it did not inspect the property was a missed opportunity to understand whether it was liable to take further action to remedy the rat infestation.
  10. The resident said she felt the landlord’s delay in progressing her report between 22 May 2023 and 14 June 2023 caused damage to her property. Therefore, she felt it had failed in its duty and should compensate her for the washing machine and sofa. She repeatedly told the landlord during the complaint procedure that she wanted to be reimbursed for these items, which she said cost her between £1,200 and £1,800.
  11. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was not responsible for the damaged items because the resident was responsible for any “pest control inside the property”. And that the council (not the landlord) was responsible for pest control in “communal areas”. It said, however, it would lay vermin deterrents in the external areas around her property.
  12. We consider the landlord misrepresented its position to the resident during its stage 1 response. Had the repair to the cement around the drainpipe caused the rats to gain entry to the property, it would have been responsible for both making repairs and eradicating the associated pests inside the property. This advice contributed to the resident’s distress because she felt the landlord was not being accountable for the matter.
  13. However, it also said in its stage 2 response that it wanted to arrange an inspection of the external areas of her home. This was to try and establish any possible entry points so it could address them and “make good”. This was reasonable in the circumstances because we consider that the landlord’s investigations into the matter, at this stage, were not sufficient to determine the cause of the rat infestation, and any associated obligations to remedy this.
  14. The landlord reasonably arranged for a pest control specialist to attend the property on 27 July 2023. The resident explained she would not allow access to the property until the landlord apologised and compensated her for her belongings. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of her responsibilities is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property, to enable it to meet its repair obligations.
  15. We accept that there can be many reasons why a resident would not allow an inspection to progress. However, delays to repairs because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out the required works promptly.
  16. The landlord said in its stage 3 response on 14 September 2023 that “checks were made to find the entry points, but none were found although [the resident] mentioned that the pests may have entered by the backdoor”. There was no evidence provided to us by the landlord to support this statement.
  17. It is unclear whether this was a failure to record the visit or to share this evidence with us. Nonetheless, we could not be satisfied based on the evidence that it did so. As such, it failed to demonstrate that it took further action to arrange a further inspection of the external drainpipe. This was a missed opportunity to engage with the resident and to determine what it was obligated to do. This was important because it would have allowed the landlord to demonstrate that it had appropriately considered the resident’s request to compensate her for the damage to her possessions.
  18. We note that after the complaint procedure was exhausted, the landlord carried out several pest control visits, which involved baiting the alleyway near the resident’s property. However, the resident explained that the underlying issue of the rat infestation continues to be a problem, although it has reduced.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping meant that it was not in a position to demonstrate it acted reasonably to the resident’s initial report. And it failed to inspect the property when it became aware the rat infestation was an ongoing issue, to determine whether it held liability towards the situation. Further, the landlord’s advice in its stage 1 response complaint was inaccurate and misrepresented its obligations. While we recognise the landlord was unable to gain entry to assess the damage to the drainpipe, there is also no evidence that it made further attempts to do so after its failed appointment on 27 July 2023. As such, we are unable to determine that it was in a position to appropriately consider the resident’s request for it to compensate her for the damage to her belongings.
  2. For these cumulative reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. Our ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’ are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  3. We note the landlord identified in its stage 3 response that its officer said it would “see what more it could do” but this was not actioned as promptly as it would have expected. And “[because of] the subsequent evidence of rodent damage”, it offered £500 and apologised. This was for separate failures outside of what we have found during this investigation. As such, it was not sufficient to address the failures found in this report.
  4. To put things right, the landlord must apologise for its failures and pay the resident £250 to recognise the detriment of these. It must also evidence that it has made reasonable attempts to repair the cement around the drainpipe. And in doing so, it must assess whether this could have reasonably been considered an entry point for a rat infestation. After which, it must review its decision not to compensate the resident for her damaged belongings.
  5. It must also provide guidance to relevant staff members about its obligations towards pest infestations. In particular, when they are caused by repairs it is responsible for. This is to ensure that it responds appropriately in the future to investigate matters and can action them appropriately. Further, it must provide guidance to relevant staff members about when, how, and where to capture notes about site inspections. This is to ensure it has a robust audit trail to support its decision making.

Complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
    1. stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint.
    2. stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request.
    3. where a third stage is in place and has been requested, landlords must respond to the stage three complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  2. The landlord did not provide us with the complaint policy in force at the time of this complaint. It is positive to note it currently operates a 2-stage complaint process, in line with the current Code.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and escalation requests as follows:
    1. the original complaint (24 June 2023) at stage 1 (11 July 2023) within 11 working days. We recognise there was a slight delay in issuing this response, which is outside of the timeframes in the Code. However, this delay was not excessive and there is no evidence this caused significant detriment to the resident.
    2. the first escalation request (14 July 2023) at stage 2 (18 July 2023) within 2 working days. This was reasonable and in line with the former Code.
    3. the second escalation request (22 August 2023) at stage 3 (14 September 2023) within 17 working days. This was also in line with the timeframes in the former Code.
  4. Overall, the landlord answered all elements of the resident’s complaint, referenced the resident’s tenancy agreement, gave reasons for its decision, and set out its understanding of the complaint. It also provided updates concerning its dealings with environmental health. For the majority of the responses, it responded promptly. Therefore, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
    2. pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
    3. provide evidence it has made attempts to repair the cement around the drainpipe.
    4. it should seek the opinion of a suitably qualified pest control contractor to help it assess whether the repair to the drainpipe could have reasonably been considered an entry point for a rat infestation.
    5. review its decision not to compensate the resident for her damaged belongings. It must write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its decision.
    6. arrange for guidance to be circulated to relevant staff members, setting out its obligations and responsibilities towards investigating and remedying pest infestations when the known cause is due to a repair it is responsible for.
    7. arrange for guidance to be circulated to relevant staff members about when, how, and where to capture notes about site inspections.