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

Lambeth Council (202341381)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341381

Lambeth Council

19 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 the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and the associated repairs to address the issue.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. She has lived in the 2–bedroomed flat with her son since October 2020.
  2. The resident reported an issue with rodents from at least 1 February 2024. The landlord said the kitchen units needed to be removed so the pest issue could be addressed. The contractor arrived to do the work on 15 February 2024 but the resident said she had not been told about the appointment so was not at home, and the appointment was moved to April 2024.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2024. She said:
    1. she had been living with a mice infestation for 6 months and had contacted the landlord many times
    2. the pest control contractor had confirmed there was an infestation and that a lot of work was required, but repairs were needed first
  4. As repairs were still outstanding and the complaint was a duplicate to one already received, the landlord escalated the complaint to the final stage of its complaint process.
  5. The landlord provided its final response on 21 May 2024 when it:
    1. apologised for the late notifications of appointments and miscommunication
    2. said it understood how frustrating and distressing the situation had been and confirmed it had raised the work for the units to be removed and the holes to be blocked, after which the pest control contractor would clean any droppings and address the pest issue
    3. advised the resident she would be without a kitchen for a couple of days during the work
    4. offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the late notifications and handling of the issues
    5. told the resident to contact again if she had not heard from anyone within the next week
  6. On 17 June 2024 the landlord received a Notice of Intended Prosecution under Section 82 (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) advising it had 21 days to abate the statutory nuisance at the property or court proceedings would be issued.
  7. On 16 July 2024 an application was made to court. The court summons was to be issued on 2 August 2024 and returnable on 2 September 2024. In accordance with the EPA, the summons confirmed it was for an order to abate or prohibit a statutory nuisance, namely rodent activity which was prejudicial to health and a nuisance in respect of the property.
  8. On 26 November 2024 the contractor confirmed it had completed the works as per the request but said a squirrel problem in the loft needed addressing.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to us on 3 December 2024. She said:
    1. she had noticed droppings on 1 December 2023 and laid traps, but the landlord had said the units needed to be removed and the holes filled
    2. a contractor attended on 28 October 2023 but said it was ‘pointless’ filling the holes as rodents were possibly entering through the roof
    3. the landlord had not been in contact since 28 October 2023 and had refused to engage with her as there was an active claim
  10. The landlord confirmed all work was completed on 16 December 2024 and the claim was settled at £6250.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme states:

‘The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

c. concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given’.

  1. As legal proceedings commenced and an application was made to Court to abate or prohibit a statutory nuisance, namely rodent activity, the resident has had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those legal proceedings.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the    complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme.