Leeds City Council (202218477)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218477

Leeds City Council

17 June 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:
1. Handling of reports of pests (insects) in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant living in a 2 bedroom house. She has vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health that the landlord was aware of.
The landlord completed plastering works to the property’s living room and kitchen on 26 May 2021. The resident told the landlord that soon afterwards she noticed small insects around her home. She contacted the landlord, who directed her to pest control services from the local authority. The records are unclear when this report was first made.
On 15 September 2021, a pest control contractor inspected the property. It found a several types of insects and determined that treatment was required. It returned on 21 September 2021 to treat all rooms with insecticide. The contractor noted that the resident was “extremely stressed” by the issue and advised her to seek medical advice.
The pest control contractor inspected the property again on 28 September 2021. It found no evidence of any insects that could “cause damage or harm”. The contractor recorded that the resident was noticeably distressed by the situation. Its records said there was no evidence of insects other than common household insects (common intruders) so no further treatment was provided.
Following further reports from the resident, the pest control contractor attended again in October 2021. After some failed visits it inspected the property on 28 October 2021. It conducted insecticide treatment to the bedrooms. There was no evidence of live insects, but dead “book lice” were found in both bedrooms. It noted that the bugs were found under the air vent in the chimney breast where it had previously treated. It checked insect monitors left on a previous visit and found no evidence of infestation. It photographed patches around the chimney in the bedrooms. Subsequently, it told the landlord that damp might be causing the problem.
The resident called the landlord on 8 November 2021. Call notes said she was “in tears sobbing” because the pest control contractor had been out several times to treat the property. She said the pest contractor told her they were “plaster mites”. She felt the mites were introduced to the property when the living room was replastered. She reported seeing insects daily all around her home, but mostly in the living room and kitchen. She told the landlord the problem was impacting her mental health. In addition, she had started going to bed earlier and was having to replace furniture because of the insects.
The landlord raised an order for the pest contractor to revisit the resident the same day. It noted that a surveyor had been sent to the property previously and they found no entry points for insects. It also arranged for officers to speak to the resident about the insects and their impact on her mental health.
The landlord exchanged emails with the pest contractor on 11 November 2021. The contractor said there was no evidence of insects other than casual intruders and no treatment was necessary. It said that it had to ensure any spray treatments it used were justifiable. As a result, it could not continue to use treatments in this case. The landlord called the resident the same day. It recorded that she was crying and “terribly upset” at the situation. It noted concerns about her general wellbeing.
The landlord visited the resident on 16 November 2021. Its records show that the officers found the resident to be distressed by the situation. They noted that she was “terribly upset”, “anxious”, and “agitated”. It related information that the contractor was unable to provide further treatment.
During the visit, the landlord inspected the property (including the chimney breast) and noted that no repairs were required. It assured the resident that the previous treatments had killed the insects. It offered to refer her to additional support and wellbeing services. The resident declined its suggestion. She remained unhappy and wanted an apology from “whoever had allowed the insects to infest her home”.
There were further conversations between the landlord and the pest control contractor on 17 and 23 November 2021. The contractor reiterated its previous advice. The landlord asked if ongoing monitoring was possible. The contractor said it was unable to provide this service, but it would consider new referrals. It also said the insects seen were known to feed on damp plaster. However, it could not evidence that the insects were brought in by the replastering works. It recommended assessing the chimney for damp.
On 13 December 2021, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the information it received from the pest control contractor. The resident had a local councillor present for support. The landlord shared the contractor’s advice. It said it was unable to request further appointments until 3 months had elapsed from the last treatment. It offered to raise a further request when it was able to do so. The landlord offered support to the resident, which was declined.
The resident was upset and said she felt the insects came into the property with the plaster and wanted an apology from the landlord. The councillor said they had seen the insects and was upset for the resident and concerned she would receive no further treatment. The landlord determined it was unable to provide a resolution satisfactory for the resident and directed her to its complaints procedure.
On 22 March 2022 the resident made a complaint. Overall, she was upset at the treatment she had received from the landlord. She said:
1. The repair operatives who conducted the plastering works left the property “in a mess”. They did not cover the floor and knocked items over in the property.
2. Almost immediately after the work was complete, she “began to feel itching” and noticed cream coloured bugs in the property. She could not “articulate sufficiently the “repulsion and horror” she felt when she discovered them.
3. When she contacted the landlord she was told it would report the issue to the local environmental health (EH) department. After waiting some time without response, she contacted the landlord again and was given the details for the local authority.
4. She had made her own request to the local authority on 14 September 2021. A pest control contractor was sent to the property who took samples of the insects and told her they were carpet beetles and plaster mites. She was told that the insects were not dangerous, but treatment was required.
5. She was told the insects were likely to have come into the property during the plastering works. She said the mites live and breed in old material or poorly stored plaster.
6. The pest control contractor sprayed the property, but this had the opposite effect. She started finding other insects in the property. She was concerned that the second time the pest control sprayed the property it only did so upstairs and this was ineffectual.
7. She had to throw away many household items and store her belongings in plastic containers because of the insects.
8. She had to seek medical attention because of bites on her back. The situation had affected on her mental health.
9. The landlord sent a surveyor who was “dismissive” and “rude”. It sent a second who was more supportive and offered to seal the skirting boards and ceiling.
10. She believed the pest control contractor had given a different version of events to her and the landlord. She was “furious” and “extremely upset” at the inference she was being dishonest.
11. She had complained previously and it had not been acknowledged in any way.
12. She wanted the landlord to issue her an apology and financial compensation for the impact this had on her and the damage to her belongings.
The landlord disputes it received the postal correspondence dated 22 March 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 4 April 2022. She said that she was still having issues with the insects in the property. The landlord recorded that she was upset during the call and said that she felt no one was helping her. She explained how pest control contractors had visited previously and found insects in the property. She asked for a senior officer to contact her.
On 4 May 2022, the Ombudsman sent email correspondence to the landlord to resister a stage one complaint. On 5 May 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement to the resident. It told the resident it would respond in 10 working days.
On 8 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. This was around 3 months after the resident initially complained. It said:
1. It did not uphold the complaint. It had complied with its duties and responsibilities as a landlord.
2. It was sorry that it had not managed the issues with insects in the way the resident would have liked it to. It recognised that the issue had caused the resident anxiety.
3. Once it was alerted to issues with pests in the property, it arranged for a pest control contractor to visit the property. The contractor conducted inspections and provided treatment.
4. It listed the dates that pest control contractors visited the property. It noted that the final report from the contractor stated that the property had casual intruders only. No further treatment was required.
5. It directed the resident to the British Pest Control Association summary of booklice. It said that booklice could be caused by new plaster drying out, condensation from poor ventilation, or leaking water pipes. “Booklice do not spread disease, bite, or damage property”.
6. It found no evidence of insects in the property during its last visit on 23 May 2022. Other than “a small group of insects in the upstairs bathroom. All of which were dead”.
7. The “perceived presence” of the insects had caused the resident anguish and distress. It wanted the resident to feel comfortable in her home again. It offered to “clean and seal” the living room. This would include a fungal wash and base coat of all walls in the living room.
8. It provided a copy of its compensation policy and said that it would not offer monetary compensation in this case.
On the 26 June 2022, the resident replied to the stage 1 response. She told the landlord:
1. She was disappointed in the landlord’s handling of the matter. She wanted it to take “several steps so we can move forwards”.
2. She believed the insects were introduced into the property by the plastering works.
3. The issues with insects had caused her “stress”, “anxiety”, “paranoia”, “physical discomfort”, and “illness”.
4. She was grateful for some acknowledgement of these issues from the landlord and its apology. However, she wanted the landlord to go further “putting the issue to rest”.
5. She was “exhausting herself” keeping the property clean and reducing the “damage” the insects did. She had become “paranoid” about the presence of insects and was “unable to relax” in the property.
6. She described an incident when she had an “outbreak of larvae” on her back when she put on what she believed were clean clothes in her bathroom. The situation was “traumatizing and required many months’ worth of treatment”.
7. She had to discard many possessions that had been damaged by the insects. These included chairs, bedding, bathroom furniture, and bath towels. There was damage to wooden furniture, grouting, and plasterwork.
8. She felt “hurt at every stage of this issue” and that the landlord had tried to blame her for not ventilating the property after the plaster work. She wanted an apology for the quality of the plaster work.
9. She wanted:
  1. The plaster in the living room and bathroom to be redone to a higher standard.
  2. An apology for the quality of the plaster work.
  3. Pest control services to return and “fully eliminate the remaining insects” at no cost to her.
  4. Copies of all documents related to her case.
  5. The landlord to review its records to see if it had correspondence from December 2021 and March 2022 that were not responded to. If it had these records and answer as to why it did not.
  6. The landlord to respond within 21 days of the letter.
The landlord disputes it received the postal correspondence dated 26 June 2022.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 25 August 2022. She was concerned about the impact the insects had on the resident’s health and wellbeing. She said the delays were making it much worse. She wanted the landlord to escalate the complaint to the final stage of its complaints process. She also wanted the landlord to acknowledge the email and provide a response within 14 days.
There was email correspondence between the landlord and the resident’s daughter on 25 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request. It asked the resident to clarify her escalation rationale however further stated that it would require a signed advocacy form which it attached, for the resident’s daughter to act on her behalf. The resident responded with the following points as well as stating she would attach the form separately:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord had not arranged pest control services since October 2021.
2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to re-seal the plaster. She believed that the plaster needed to be hacked off and redone.
3. She believed that the landlord should offer compensation to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused.
4. The landlord had not apologised to the resident.
5. The landlord had not sought to resolve the problems.
The landlord and resident’s daughter exchanged emails on 31 August in which the landlord confirmed a signed copy of the advocacy form would be required and not an electronic copy. The resident’s daughter confirmed it could be sent to the resident’s address and she would pick it up from there.
The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022. She said that she had not received a response to her escalation request. She said the resident continued to find insects in the property and had found “book lice” all over the bathroom. She was worried about the impact this was having on the resident. She was not eating and was “terrified to sleep” in case there were insects in her bed. It had been weeks since she last spoke to the landlord and she was waiting for a resolution. The landlord confirmed it had received the signed advocacy form on 27 September 2022 and invited the resident’s daughter to call and provided a telephone number.
The landlord sent email correspondence to the resident’s daughter on 3 October 2022. It said that it had consulted internally and decided to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It needed to convene a panel to review the case and the resident could attend the hearing. It was unable to arrange further pest control treatments until the panel had met to review the case. It also said that pest control arrangements were the resident’s responsibility and directed her to the local authority EH.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement. It invited the resident to attend a review panel on 24 October 2022.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This was around 4 months after the resident’s initial escalation request and 20 working days following the receipt of the resident’s daughter’s advocacy form. The landlord reiterated its stage 1 findings and detailed the actions it had taken regarding pest control previously. It gave the resident an opportunity to talk through the problems she experienced with the panel. It noted that she was no longer using her living room and felt restricted to other rooms in the house. It recognised that the situation had caused her distress.
The resident said the landlord had not taken responsibility for the problems and she was without resolution for a year. She believed she should be compensated for distress and loss of property. The landlord noted that the resident had thrown items away because they “had insects on them” or because she had “washed them frequently at hot temperatures”. The landlord set out the complaint into the following sections and answered them in turn:
1. Was the landlord responsible for the insects?
  1. The insect lava may have been present in the plaster. This was naturally occurring and did not mean the plaster was defective or not fit for use. Adequate ventilation which controls humidity and condensation would have prevented the lava hatching. When the property was replastered, the resident was advised to increase ventilation, which she said she did.
  2. The landlord felt it was not responsible for insects in the property.
2. Was the eradication of insects the responsibility of the landlord?
  1. The “tenancy agreement did not provide that eradication of insects was the responsibility of the landlord”. This was “the resident’s responsibility”. However, because it was aware of the “distress the situation caused”, it engaged a specialist pest control service. This was “over and above its responsibility” and was done to “help and support the resident in a time of extreme distress”.
3. Was the presence of insects in the living room sufficient to make the room unusable?
  1. Visits from the pest control contractor and the landlord showed the level of insect activity was “minimal” and not “sufficient to render the living room uninhabitable”.
4. Were the physical health symptoms experienced by the resident related to insects?
  1. The cause of the resident’s physical health symptoms was inconclusive.
5. Had the landlord acted appropriately to support the resident?
  1. The landlord said it had been “responsive”, “supportive”, and “tried to reassure the resident” that the presence of insects was harmless. It conducted chemical treatment at its own cost “to reassure the resident”.
6. Was the stage 1 investigation conducted properly and with due regard to all the facts?
  1. To investigate the complaint the landlord visited the resident, spent time with her to understand the issues. It examined its records and communication with the resident. It determined that it had acted to investigate and address the complaint at stage 1. It felt it was correct not to uphold the complaint because “there was no service failure”.
7. Was there more that could be done to address the substantive issue and satisfy the resident that all reasonable steps had been taken?
  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the situation. To help the resident, the landlord offered a further visit by the pest control contractor to spray the entire home and then visit again to review the situation.
8. Was compensation payable in the situation?
  1. It had “not identified service failure”. Therefore, the resident was ineligible for compensation. It offered the resident a small gift as a gesture of good will and concern for the distress she experienced.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 21 January 2023. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and reiterated many of the points raised above. She said there were still mites in the property. She wanted the landlord to keep the property under a 12 month review to ensure that the insects were controlled.
In February 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had arranged further pest treatment works in November 2022. She said the contractor did not treat the whole house and she felt they were “dismissive” during the visit. She reported using store brought insecticide and said these treatments had reduced the problem. She said the situation had impacted on her mental health. She wanted the landlord to replaster the ceilings and offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the timeline, the resident repeatedly stated the insects had impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to decide about the causal link between the insects and the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
The resident complained about damage to her personal belongings caused by insects. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the complaint for damages. This is because the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Service’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.

Policy and procedures

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy shows it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to respond within 20 working days. It reviewed complaints at stage 2 by a panel that would consist of 1 senior member of staff and 2 board members.
The landlord’s compensation policy considered compensation in the form of a gesture of good will in some circumstances. This was based on loss and inconvenience caused to a resident if the landlord was responsible. This could include a small token such as a bunch of flowers or box of chocolates. In cases that result in distress over extended periods, it considered payments of up to £10 per month, to a maximum of £50.

Handling of reports of pests in the property

The landlord did not have a pest control policy. It did include terms in its tenancy conditions requiring residents to keep properties “reasonably clean, free from pests and in reasonable condition”. The landlord directed the resident to these conditions in its complaint responses.
Landlords are obliged to make sure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which includes eliminating household pests. Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair. Legislation requires landlords to take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. The resident reported many types of insects (that are pests) in her home. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow insects to enter the property.
The resident reported insects soon after the landlord replastered rooms in the property. The evidence is unclear when the issue was first reported to the landlord. The records did not include the dates for the initial service request.
Upon receiving reports of insects, the landlord directed the resident to pest control services and carried out repairs inspections. The pest control contractor conducted several visits, during which treatment was provided and traps were laid. In October 2021, the contractor reported that there were only casual intruders seen in the property. The landlord acted on the advice of its contractor. There was no evidence of entry points into the property that were the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. There was no evidence of infestation at this visit. The landlord continued to contract pest control services until it was advised to stop. This was reasonable and demonstrated its intent to resolve the issue for the resident.
The resident was concerned that the insects entered the property through the plastering works. There was insufficient evidence to determine if was a link between the landlord’s plastering in the property and the presence of insects. However, the problem was persistent and it was reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate to see if it related to an issue with the property.
If there was a risk of mites entering the property through the plaster, the landlord should have given appropriate advice to reduce that risk. The records are unclear if this advice was made clear to the resident. It was discussed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, where there is some concern that the issue arose because the resident did not properly ventilate the property. It was unfair for the landlord to suggest the resident held some responsibility for the insects in this case.
The contractor was concerned that damp may have been the cause, which the landlord inspected and determined was not the case. There are no copies of inspection reports that the Ombudsman has seen; however, the resident corroborated this information.
The resident told the landlord that she had to throw items away because of “damage” caused by the insects. Claims relating to damage to belongings are often time sensitive. The landlord should have directed the resident towards its insurer when she made these reports, so that a proper assessment could be made. The was no evidence available to Ombudsman that shows that the landlord made this offer.
There was a lack of communication to respond to the resident between 26 June and 3 October 2022. The resident and her representatives contacted the landlord asking for updates. The resident expressed how much the issue was impacting on her. She reported being increasingly distressed by the situation. She took additional time and trouble contacting the landlord, without response. After setting expectation that the landlord would help the resident resolve the issue, it then left her for prolonged periods without a response to her reports. The landlord should have responded sooner, it did not and this caused distress to the resident.
In the final response to the complaint, the landlord made a commitment for further visits by pest control, which were subsequently conducted. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further inspection. However, there were nearly 12 months between the two requests. The resident frequently told the landlord how severely she was impacted by the insect issue. It should have made this offer sooner.
The landlord told the resident in December 2021 that it could review the treatment 3 months later. This meant that by March 2022 it should have contacted the resident to discuss the problem. After raising the resident’s expectations that it could review the issues with insects, it did not follow through. Once it had committed to treating the problem, it should have continued until the issues were resolved. The failure to proactively manage this case caused a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
It was difficult for the Ombudsman to gauge the extent of the problem. The professional reports show that treatment was required initially. They also show that treatment was required once the internal complaint procedures were complete. However, the resident frequently told the landlord how much the insects impacted on her health and wellbeing.
The landlord’s records show that it recognised the distress the situation caused. It offered to make referrals for support during visits to the resident, which she refused. It was reasonable to make these offers and it was good to recognise the resident’s vulnerability early in the timeline. However, it should have conducted regular reviews of the condition of the property. It could have scheduled appointments with the resident in December 2021 and monitored the impact the situation had on the resident. If it had, it could have helped manage the impact and identify sooner if treatments were still required.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property. It initially provided sufficient advice and sought to resolve the issues with insects in the property. Its provision of pest control services was reasonable. However, it later failed to proactively manage the case after committing to do so. It left the resident for prolonged periods with no communication and caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience by doing so. The landlord’s decision making protracted the issue unnecessarily. The landlord should arrange for a further inspection from a suitably qualified pest control service to ensure that there is no evidence of infestation. It should pay the resident £400 in compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were outside those timeframes.
The resident provided sufficient evidence to illustrate that she had raised a complaint in March 2022 and escalated it to stage two in June 2022, both via postal correspondence. The Ombudsman accepts the resident sent postal correspondence on both occasions, however in this instance, there is no evidence to suggest it was received by the landlord and in various circumstances postal correspondence can be lost in transit and never received by the intended recipient. The landlord confirmed it had not received either the initial complaint by the resident in March 2022 nor the escalation to stage two in June 2022.
As such, I find it reasonable to note that the date of receipt of the complaint to be 4 May 2022 following contact from the Ombudsman to the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer. Taking into consideration this date and the date of the stage one response of 8 June 2022, this amounts to 23 working days and remains considerably outside of the landlord’s service level agreement. I note the landlord confirmed part of this delay was due to unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident, however no supporting evidence was provided to illustrate this was the case. Nor was any written correspondence to the resident which the landlord could have sent to manage the resident’s expectations as to when a stage one response would be received by. This would have been good practice had it opted to do so. Therefore, the unsuccessful attempts should not have delayed its complaint process and a response should have been provided. This caused distress to the resident.
The Ombudsman accepts the landlord was not in receipt of the stage two escalation postal correspondence dated 28 June 2022, the following correspondence to consider would be that of the resident’s daughter’s email correspondence dated 25 August 2022. The landlord responded appropriately to confirm should the daughter wish to act on behalf of her mother, she would have to complete a signed advocacy form. The landlord confirmed receipt of this form on 27 September 2022 and therefore it would have been reasonable that this was deemed the escalation date as the concerns raised were already within the landlord’s possession. This would amount to 20 working days till the stage two response was provided, which was outside of its service level agreement of 15 working days. Importantly, this could have potentially been avoided or reduced had the landlord opted to call the resident following the resident’s daughter’s initial email correspondence dated 25 August 2022. This would have allowed the landlord to progress the complaint sooner and ensure the complaints procedure was less protracted. This would have been the reasonable approach from the landlord and considering there was a month in between the date the landlord received the resident’s daughter’s escalation correspondence and receipt of the signed form.
The landlord delayed action unnecessarily to wait for a panel to convene to discuss the complaint. It delayed treating the substantive issue and this caused more unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It should have raised an order for the pest control contractor to visit the resident sooner.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s stage 2 response sought to address the issues set out by the resident. It did broadly respond to the resident’s concerns, but it did not fully reflect the impact the issues had. The landlord should pay the resident £300 in compensation for the impact the delays to respond to, or acknowledge, the resident’s complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation. This sum includes:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of pests in the property.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Arrange for a further inspection from a suitably qualified pest control service to ensure that there is no evidence of infestation.
4. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, to ensure that these are followed and prompt complaint responses are issued in every case.
5. Share the key findings in this report with its staff to ensure that they learn from its complaint handling failures.
6. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should produce a clear pest control policy and publish it on their website.