Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202315640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315640

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

12 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing rat infestation.

Background

This complaint was raised in 2 parts to the Housing Ombudsman Service under references 202336579 and 202315640, respectively. For ease and efficiency, it has been decided to consider both complaints together.
The complaint was raised by the resident, and at times by his partner. This report will refer to both the resident and his partner as “the resident”.
The resident is an assured tenant. The resident occupies the property as a joint tenant with his partner. The property is a ground floor flat, within a 3-storey building.
The property is located on a large estate, featuring similar properties, garages, parking areas, communal green spaces, and an allotment. Residents dispose of their household refuse in communal refuse bins, which are individually stored on the pavement.
The resident phoned the landlord on the evening of 6 December 2023, after a rat accessed the property via an open window. The resident asked the landlord to arrange for its pest control contractor to retrieve the rat, which had been contained alive in a dustbin.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 7 December 2023, expressing dissatisfaction that the landlord could not confirm exactly when its contractor would attend. The resident reminded the landlord that he and his partner were both disabled and expressed concern that the rat could have a detrimental impact on health. The resident said that he had found the landlord’s response “astonishing” because he had reported issues with vermin previously and the matter had not been resolved.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 5 January 2024. The landlord:
1. Set out its understanding of the complaint, namely its handling and response to the resident’s reports about an issue with pests. “Specifically,” the incident when the resident had found a rat in the property.
2. Clarified that it was only able to consider events that had taken place during the last 6-months. But said it had reviewed its records from the past year to understand the background to the complaint.
3. Noted that its pest control contractor had attended the block on 12 December 2023, to remove the rat.
4. Commented that its contractor had identified “a lot” of rat activity in the area surrounding the property. It suggested that overflowing refuse bins, the volume of green space, and the number of garages in the area, were possible contributory factors.
5. Explained that the relevant code of guidance prevented it from baiting the external areas. Because of this, it said it had raised an inspection to identify any repairs or adaptations, which might reduce the likelihood of rats entering the property.
6. Said on the available evidence, there was no evidence of any failure of service, but could understand the resident’s frustration.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 8 January 2024. The resident said that he did not accept the landlord’s findings. The resident:
1. Suggested that the landlord had been aware of issues with overflowing bins and vermin for some time. He said the landlord was also aware of rodents in the loft space and suggested there were not enough bins on the estate for the number of residents.
2. Said he had waited 2 weeks for the landlord’s pest control contractor to remove the live rats he had captured. He said this was “despicable” because the landlord was aware that he and his partner had severe health conditions. He expressed concern that the rats had run across medication stored in the bathroom.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 9 January 2024, adding that he and his partner had had to request new medication because of concerns about contamination. He suggested the landlord had been aware of ongoing rat infestations and persistent fly tipping for the past 12 months. He suggested that the landlord had been aware of ongoing issues with overflowing bins for the last 3 years.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 25 January 2024. The landlord:
1. Said it noted the resident’s concern that there may be rodents living within the loft space. It reassured the resident that if any reports of rodent activity were to be made, these would be addressed promptly by its pest control contractor. It said there were no outstanding works required to the building.
2. Said it was sorry to learn that medications needed to be replaced due to the incident with the rat.
3. Stated that its records did not resonate with the resident’s comments, that its pest control contractor had left him 2 weeks with vermin captured in a dustbin. It said its records showed that its contractor had removed the rat on 12 December 2023.
4. Confirmed that its surveyor had inspected the property following the incident and had provided reassurance that there were no other potential entry points to rodents. The landlord suggested that its response had been reasonable and appropriate.
5. Said it had discussed the resident’s concerns about rodent activity in the area with its pest control contractor. It explained that its contractor felt the vegetation in the area and overflowing bins would act as a food source to rodents. But said its contractor was unable to bait external areas due to code of practice guidance.
6. Clarified that the right number of bins had been provided for use by estate residents for domestic waste, in accordance with local authority guidance. It commented that if the bins were used appropriately, they would provide sufficient capacity.
7. Said its caretaking team did clear excess waste when this was seen or when this was reported. It noted that there had been no recent reports about overflowing bins. However, it said its caretaking team had been asked to monitor the situation and report back if the bins were being abused or were being used by non-residents.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman because he did not believe that the landlord had taken the complaint seriously. The resident told the Ombudsman on 5 November 2024, that the landlord should resolve the ongoing issue with rats and compensate for the alarm, distress, and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

At the time of the complaint, paragraph 42.c of the Scheme stated that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. The landlord adopted a similar position when investigating the complaint.
Accordingly, this investigation will assess the landlord’s actions between 7 June 2023 and 25 January 2023. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report may reference events beyond this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.
The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. But this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his partner by the situation.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord was under a contractual and statutory obligation, under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord also had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. The landlord would be expected to take preventative measures to mitigate the likelihood or risk from infection from pests, such as rats. For example, the landlord might identify and seal up possible access points to the building where rats might enter.
According to the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure, the landlord will attend to emergency repairs in 24 hours, urgent repairs in 5 working days, routine repairs in 15 working days, and non-routine repairs in 90 working days. This procedure clarifies that pest control within the property was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord’s website stated that the landlord was responsible for pest control within external and internal communal areas.
The landlord’s pest control procedure, set out the landlord’s approach to pest control. Following reports about rats or mice, the landlord will raise a works order for its contractor to attend. Where rats are identified, its contractor will attend 3 times to lay traps or bait.
The campaign for responsible rodenticide use published its “best practice and guidance for rodent control and the safe use of rodenticides” in July 2021. It is a requirement of the authorisation for professional rodenticide products that this guidance document is followed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing rat infestation.

The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had been aware of an ongoing issue with rats in external areas of the estate, and within internal communal areas of the building, for several years. It was not possible to verify the full extent or duration of the issue prior to December 2023, from the available evidence.
The resident phoned the landlord’s out of hours number on 6 December 2023, to report that a rat had entered the property via an open window. The resident said that he had secured the rat in a dustbin, which had been placed in the porch alive. The resident asked the landlord’s out of hours service for assistance with disposing of the rat. The landlord’s out of hours service said that the resident should call back the following morning and report this to the landlord directly.
In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the matter to have waited until the next day. This was because the rat was contained and presented no risk to the resident or the property. But the landlord’s out of hours service might have passed the resident’s report onto the appropriate service area, rather than asking the resident to phone back. This would have been better customer service.
The resident phoned the landlord on 7 December 2023, asking for assistance in disposing of the live rat. The resident reminded the landlord that he and his partner were disabled and suggested that “this could have a detrimental effect on our health”. The resident expressed concern that the landlord had originally suggested he release the rat back out onto the estate. The resident’s concern was understandable given that he considered there to be an ongoing issue with rats in the area.
Although responsibility for pest control within the property fell to the resident, the landlord demonstrated reasonableness by agreeing to remove the live rat using its own pest control contractor. Given the resident’s concerns about health, this was fair. However, having made this decision, the landlord ought to have given the resident an expected timescale for completing this job. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations about removing the rat that led to the formal complaint being raised.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised a works order for its pest control contractor on the same day, which was encouraging. The landlord specified that the job should be completed by 8 January 2024, which suggests that the landlord was treating the matter as routine works. In the Ombudsman’s view, this job ought to have been assigned greater priority, if only for humane reasons, given that the rat had been trapped alive in the dustbin. Nonetheless, it is noted that the landlord’s pest control contractor attended on 12 December 2023, which was within the target timescale set by the landlord.
In its report to the landlord, its pest control contractor confirmed that it had removed the captured “rats” on 12 December 2023. This may suggest there was more than one rat. It is understood that its contractor shared the resident’s view that the rat(s) had accessed the property via an open window. As such, this was likely to have been a one-off incident, not caused by a defect with the property. However, its contractor did also alert the landlord to “a lot of rat activity in the area”. It expressed its view that this was most likely exacerbated by overfilled refuse bins.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor told the landlord that it could not bait external communal areas due to the presence of non-target species. This information was passed onto the resident in the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its pest control contractor in this matter. But the Ombudsman’s interpretation of the guidance is that certain rodenticide treatments may be used in external areas subject to appropriate controls. However, such treatments must be seen as a “temporary solution that becomes necessary only when other procedures have been fully considered and implemented, where appropriate, to make sites less conducive to rodent infestation”. This might involve removing places for rodents to shelter and breed, by preventing access to food and water, and proofing works which exclude rodents from buildings and resources. The landlord may wish to seek further clarity on the use of baiting in external areas.
The Ombudsman is concerned by the “opinion” expressed by its pest control contractor following its attendance on 12 December 2023, that the resident was complaining to get some compensation. The resident was understandably upset to see his motivation for complaining questioned, after obtaining a copy of his records through an information request. While this comment was unprofessional, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord shared this view or allowed it to influence its later actions. The Ombudsman notes that later instructions for pest control services were raised with a different contractor.
The landlord raised an inspection request on 20 December 2023, for its surveyor. The purpose of the inspection was to check for defects with the property and see if any adaptations could be made, which might reduce the chance of rats gaining entry.
In internal communications prior to the inspection, the landlord commented that it was understandable that its pest control contractor might be reluctant to carry out baiting due to children living on the estate. It pointed out that the area was also surrounded by garages and green land which was likely to attract vermin. It noted that there were no outstanding repairs but committed to carrying out any new repairs or adjustments that might be identified during its inspection. This was encouraging and demonstrates that the landlord was giving the resident’s concerns the attention they deserved.
The landlord’s surveyor completed the inspection on 5 Januaruay 2024, finding no defects with the property. The landlord concluded that the rat must have entered the property via an open window or door, which is not disputed by the resident. No repairs or adaptations to the property were identified. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor in this matter.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 8 January 2024, as he did not agree there had been no service failure. The resident suggested that the landlord had been aware of ongoing issues with rats running through the loft space and issues with fly tipping. He said that it was also aware that there were not enough bins, but the landlord had done nothing about this.
While the resident raised concerns about rats in the loft, it is unlikely that he was directly affected by rats in this area of the building, given that the property was on the ground floor. While the resident has explained to the Ombudsman that he can now hear rats in the walls of the property, there is no evidence to suggest this was the case at the time of the complaint. The landlord reassured the resident in the stage 2 response, that any reports received about rodent activity would be promptly addressed by its pest control contractor. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had completed a 3-part course of baiting in the loft, in December 2023. It may have offered the resident reassurance had the landlord shared this information with the resident within its complaint response.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about rodent activity in external areas in the stage 2 response. The landlord said that it had discussed the matter with its pest control contractor again. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord was revisiting its options. It commented that its contractor felt that vegetation in the area and overfilled bins would offer rodents a source of food. But maintained its position that it could not bait external areas as this would be dangerous to other wildlife, pets, and possibly children. The Ombudsman maintains that the landlord ought to seek further clarification regarding the baiting of external areas.
It is unclear if the landlord considered making any changes to its green spaces, to make these areas less attractive to rodents, given that these areas had been cited several times as contributory factors. Although, having viewed images of the estate, it is difficult to see what changes the landlord could have made. The landlord may wish to revisit this matter itself if it has not already considered this. Such measures might include removing weeds that may provide harbourage and cover from natural predators. Laying areas around buildings to concrete or another hard surface, to prevent rodent burrowing.
The landlord did reassure the resident that its caretaking team routinely arranged for excess waste to be cleared, and litter picked, which was positive. However, the landlord ought to have provided evidence of this to the Ombudsman, so this could be verified.
The landlord did reassure the resident that the number of bins provided for the estate was correct and was in line with the local authority’s bin allocation policy. It added that when the bins were used appropriately, they should provide the right capacity for the number of residents living on the estate. The landlord considered whether there was a need to increase the number of bins provided, which shows that the landlord was considering a range of options to resolve the complaint. The Ombudsman has been unable to make an assessment of the scale or frequency of this issue from the available evidence. But notes that the landlord did not consider the estate to be particularly problematic in this regard.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord sought to gain further intelligence by tasking its caretakers to monitor the bins. Its caretakers were asked to report back to the service area if the bins were being abused or were being used by non-residents. This was also communicated to the resident in the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to want to encourage its residents to dispose of their waste responsibility before looking to increase bin capacity, which could impact resident service charges. However, it may have offered the resident greater reassurance if the landlord had given a fuller explanation about its intentions within the stage 2 response. For example, it could have explained in greater detail how the bins would be monitored and over what timescale. It might have explained what steps would be taken if an issue was identified.
While events beyond the stage 2 response fall outside the scope of this investigation, the Ombudsman does make several observations and comments.
Over the course of the next 2 months, the resident made multiple reports to the landlord about fly tipping, overflowing bins, and rats. He suggested that the landlord was not clearing waste or litter picking on a regular basis. He also reported that residents were feeding the birds. The landlord took steps to remove waste, it wrote to residents about feeding the birds, and reassured the resident that its caretakers were regularly litter picking. It instructed its pest control contractor to carry out further investigations.
The latest pest control report dated 30 August 2024, assessed the risk to the property from rodent infestation as “very high”, which is troubling. The report indicated that internal and some external communal areas had been baited and recommended that a drainage survey be carried out. The resident is of the opinion that the landlord has taken no action since this. He has told the Ombudsman that the building smells of rats, the landlord had left rat carcasses in the loft, and he can hear rats in the walls. To support the resolution of the substantive issue of complaint, the landlord should consider reviewing its strategy for tackling any current rodent infestation within the internal communal areas and void spaces of the building. Thereafter, it should share its plans with the resident in writing, for eradicating rats from the building, removing carcasses, and future monitoring. The landlord should include timescales for action.
Due to the physical features of the estate, it is likely that rodents will always be present in external areas of the estate, to some extent. However, there are proactive steps that the landlord may take to manage the ongoing situation. If the landlord does not already have a plan in place to manage this, it should consider taking the following steps:
1. Once adequate control of the infestation has been achieved, to monitor areas that are prone to infestation and reinfestation regularly. This will enable it to proactively identify new rodent activity as soon as it becomes apparent and prevent chronic infestations becoming established.
2. The landlord should pay particular attention to improving hygiene, clearing away rubbish, reducing harbourage, preventing access to food sources, and proofing buildings where appropriate.
3. It may help rebuild the tenant landlord relationship if the landlord were to share its intentions with the resident.
The Ombudsman makes a specific observation about the landlord’s management of communal bins, which are stored on footpaths, in close proximity to residential buildings. Photographs seen of these bins show lids propped open by excess waste. The Ombudsman suggests that the positioning of these bins leaves them susceptible to misuse, increasing the likelihood of over spill and accumulations of side waste. As previously discussed, open bins and side waste provide harbourage and a food source to rodents.
If the landlord has not done so already, the landlord may wish to monitor how frequently these bin lids are left open. Depending on its findings, it could consider changing its arrangement for storing waste, in consultation with the local authority and its residents. While the maximum capacity of bins on the estate may have been reached, the landlord might consider building and assigning lockable bin stores for each building it owns, to help control who and how the bins are used. It is accepted that available space, lease restrictions, funding, building safety, and planning considerations, could create a barrier to this.

In summary

While the Ombudsman considers it unlikely that the landlord will be able to eradicate rats from the estate entirely, the landlord must take steps to keep the property and building in an adequate state of repair and free of hazards which may cause serious harm.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident was alarmed when the rat(s) entered the property via the bathroom window. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was particularly distressing for the resident, because of his fear of rats. However, the Ombudsman does not find the landlord to be at fault for the rat(s) accessing the property via an open window. This is because the rat(s) did not enter the property due to a defect with the property, that the landlord ought to have known about. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord made an exception under its usual policy and removed the captured rat(s), in view of the resident’s concerns about health. Given its statutory obligations, it was prudent that the landlord satisfied itself that there were no other points of entry into the property by rodents.
The landlord has evidenced that it baited the loft space in line with its pest control procedure, after identifying the presence of rats in the loft. The landlord has proactively sought advice from its pest control contractor about measures that could be taken to address rats in external areas. It has reassured the resident of its commitment to remove fly tip and spilled waste. The Ombudsman does not find fault that the landlord did not increase the number of bins on the estate, if there was insufficient evidence to support this at the time. The Ombudsman was also encouraged by the landlord’s commitment to monitor usage of the bins so further action could be taken if necessary.
While there are areas for the landlord’s further consideration, on balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing rat infestation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an ongoing rat infestation.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its plan for tackling any current rodent infestation in internal communal areas and void spaces within the building. The landlord should share this plan with the resident in writing, including any timescales for action.
If the landlord does not already have a plan to manage infestations within external communal areas, it should consider taking the steps outlined at paragraph 44 of this report. If the landlord does have a plan, this should be revisited, to satisfy itself of the adequacy of the measures being taken. The landlord may wish to consider the suitability of its existing arrangements for storing waste, as referenced at paragraphs 45 and 46 of this report. The landlord should communicate its plans to the resident in writing, including any timescales for action.
The landlord should seek further clarity from suitability qualified persons, on the use rodenticides in external areas.