London Borough of Ealing (202341189)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341189

London Borough of Ealing

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a rodent infestation at the property.
2. The resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a 1 bedroom second-floor flat, under a secure tenancy which began on 16 December 2011. The resident lives at the property with her two young children.
In August 2023, the resident reported a problem with rodents at the property. The landlord’s pest control contractors attended the property on 14 September 2023, 27 September 2023, and 12 October 2023. After setting bait stations and looking for entry points, the contractor noted that the kitchen unit backboard under the sink was preventing access to a likely ingress point so this would need to be cut away to inspect the wall and block ingress points found. The contractor recommended proofing under the sink such as wire wool may not be fully effective.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 November 2023 which said:
1. The landlord had taken 3 weeks to offer a first appointment when she reported rodents in her home, and only provided this when she contacted the landlord a second time.
2. The landlord did not follow the recommendation of the pest control contractor to move the kitchen units to make sure that any pest entry points were blocked.
3. Proofing works had been ineffective.
4. The landlord’s employee had behaved inappropriately at appointments on 4 October 2023 and 6 November 2023.
5. The impact of the problem meant that the infestation was causing stress and impacting on the family’s health due to feeling unable to use the kitchen. This meant that the resident was eating microwaveable foods only to minimise the time needed to prepare food in the kitchen. The resident reported that she was bleaching surfaces and disinfecting every time she used the kitchen, as she had CCTV which showed the rodents had been running all over the surfaces. She noted the potential harmful side effects of these harsh chemicals, and her worries about the effects because she was breastfeeding and had young children.
6. The resident asked the landlord to resolve the issue by investigating the entry points behind the cupboards, and apologising to her for the time taken to resolve the problem.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2024. It acknowledged delays in the initial attendance by its pest control contractor and apologised for the fact that the contractor had attended later than anticipated. The landlord confirmed that it would send 3 employees including a pest control officer, to the property on 30 January 2024 to complete the proofing works required.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 February 2024. She said:
1. There was a significant delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint and the landlord only responded after she had submitted her complaint via its portal.
2. She felt the landlord was ignoring a wider problem with rodents in the block.
3. She noted that the operatives who attended on 30 January 2024 did not have the necessary information when they attended for the appointment, and she had been told by them that the wire wool served no purpose under her sink.
4. The condition of the kickboards had been made worse each time by the employees sent to her house to address her pest control issues.
5. The landlord’s employees who attended on 30 January 2024 were not wearing ID, and only one of the employees produced it when requested.
6. The impact on her family was significant and she felt the landlord had not recognised this. She requested compensation for inconvenience, financial loss, loss of belongings and health problems caused by the issue.
7. She wanted the kitchen unit to be pulled out to find the holes where the rodents were entering and for the landlord to box in the pipes in the kitchen.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024, confirming that it would not be upholding the complaint at that time. The landlord stated that the inspection on 30 January 2024 and 13 February 2024 had concluded that there was no evidence of a live mice infestation at that time and that there were no entry points behind the plinths in the kitchen. It further noted that the team had been unable to inspect the water tank cupboard in the hallway and that the landlord had tried to contact the resident on 27 and 28 February 2024 to arrange a further visit. The landlord confirmed it was unable to contact her on those dates, but spoke to her on 22 April 2024 when she confirmed she was not able to allow access at the time due to family circumstances. The landlord’s employee asked the resident to contact her when she was able to allow access so that a further visit could be arranged.
On 18 June 2024, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She noted that the landlord had still not looked behind the cupboards to find the entry points in her kitchen and that the rodents had started to chew through the wire wool used previously to block the other entry points it had identified.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident stated in her complaint that the rodent infestation had affected her family’s health. It is beyond the Ombudsman’s expertise to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. This is because the court can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements.
Our decision not to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a rodent infestation at the property.

The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is pests. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on pest control states that after a resident has reported a pest control issue, a landlord should undertake timely inspections of homes/impacted areas. There should then be timely repairs which link to the organisation’s repairs policy and the severity of the issue.
At the time of the reports by the resident, the landlord’s policy was to offer pest control services to council owned properties. Its website confirmed that the council would provide 3 visits.
The resident has stated in complaint correspondence that her first call to the landlord about the issue was during the week commencing 21 August 2023. A repair request for that date was not available within the records provided by the landlord, and the landlord has been unable to provide details of the first telephone call reporting the issue, due to its policy of deleting phone records after 90 days.
The Ombudsman has been provided by the resident with email correspondence dated 5 September 2023 from the landlord to the resident, advising her to contact the landlord’s environmental health department about the pest control issue. The Ombudsman has not been provided with records by the landlord showing a repair request was raised on that date.
The first pest control record provided by the landlord is dated 14 September 2023, and the first repair request noted by the landlord is dated 26 September 2023, which was after the first appointment.
It is clear to this Service, upon review of the records provided, that the landlord did not maintain a full and consistent record of the service requests made by the resident. In contrast, the resident has provided a chronology of her reports and the subsequent attendances by the landlord and its contractors in her complaint and escalation request. In the absence of records provided by the landlord, and as the landlord has not disputed the resident’s sequence of events, the Ombudsman has relied on the resident’s account that the date of first contact with the landlord by the resident was during the week commencing 21 August 2023.
The records show that a pest control contractor first attended at the property on 14 September 2023. The contractor therefore attended within 18 working days of the resident’s report in the week commencing 21 August 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in its pest control contractor attending at the resident’s property, and explained that this was due to high demand for this service.
Whilst the contractor’s attendance was in line with the landlord’s repair policy target of 28 working days for attendance for a non-emergency repair, the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord that earlier attendance at the property by pest control should have occurred in this case. The resident’s circumstances, living at the property with a young child and a baby, and the fact that the resident had, at the time of reporting, very recently undergone a caesarean delivery, meant that she was particularly vulnerable.
In addition, the areas affected at the property were her kitchen and bathroom, with the resident reporting being unable to use the rooms at certain times of day due to the rodent infestation. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised in the complaint response for the fact that the initial attendance was later than they would have expected.
The landlord’s pest control contractors attended the property on 14 September 2023, 27 September 2023, and 12 October 2023. Evidence of rodent activity was confirmed, and proofing was undertaken by the contractor using wire wool to block entry points around pipework. A recommendation was also made by the contractor to cut an access panel in the backboard of the unit under the kitchen sink in order to inspect the wall and block possible ingress points. The contractor also noted that the wire wool proofing used at the property may not be fully effective.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 2 October 2023 to ask it to arrange access to the area behind the cupboards, in order to investigate entry points. She noted that the contractor was not authorised to do this, but that he had recommended this action in order to resolve the infestation issue at the property. The resident also stated that the landlord needed to make the property habitable and safe for the resident and her children, and noted the problem was affecting her health.
The Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords when dealing with pest control issues is that the landlord should conduct a risk assessment of the situation to assess whether it is appropriate to decant the resident – this should take into account the resident’s circumstance (as stated in our Spotlight report on attitudes, rights and respect).
The landlord’s own decant policy states that the landlord needs to manage the safety risk to its tenants by moving them out of their permanent home quickly if their health is at risk.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident informed the landlord in her email on 2 October 2023, and in her stage 1 complaint on 12 November 2023, of how difficult it was for the resident and her family to live in the property. In her stage 2 escalation request, she also notified the landlord that she had left the property in September 2023 due to rodents in the kitchen and bathroom.
The pest control contractors engaged by the landlord had reported evidence of rodent activity in the resident’s kitchen during their visits on 14 September 2023 and 27 September 2023. However, no evidence is available to show that the landlord conducted a risk assessment following confirmation of rodent activity by its contractor. This should have been carried out by the landlord to assess the severity of the issue and whether it was appropriate to decant the resident to alternative accommodation whilst the rodent infestation was investigated and addressed. The failure to assess the risk to the resident and her family was not appropriate.
In her stage 1 complaint on the 12 November 2023, the resident stated that the landlord’s employee attended the property on 4 October 2023 and 6 November 2023. The landlord’s records of the attendance on 4 October 2023 do not contain details of the work carried out on that date, but instead include the narrative from the pest control contractor’s visit on 14 September 2023. This record stated that the resident had carried out her own proofing and that further proofing would need to be carried out in the corner of the kitchen, but the contractor could not gain access due to the cupboard. No record of the further visit on 6 November 2023, referred to by the resident in her complaint, has been provided to the Ombudsman. It is noted that in the stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the cupboards were not removed by its employee. However, the lack of records and information regarding the landlord’s actions during these appointments has meant that we are unable to establish if the landlord did anything further at this time.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the landlord carried out any investigations behind the backboard of the kitchen unit under the sink, as recommended by the contractor. In addition, no evidence was provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord had employed alternative proofing methods to the wire wool, which the pest control contractor had suggested may not be fully effective.
The Ombudsman notes that in its stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident that it did not remove kitchen units in case a replacement cannot be found if the unit was damaged. This was because it could leave the resident without a functioning kitchen. The landlord stated that if it found that cupboards did need to be removed, this would be referred to the surveying team to arrange for an alternative contractor to attend. The landlord also stated that the wire wool used was obtained from a pest control supplier and was specifically used for proofing works.
However, the landlord also acknowledged that proofing works had not been carried out satisfactorily. In recognition of this failing, and in response to the resident’s concerns about ongoing infestation, the landlord confirmed it would arrange a further appointment for its pest control officers to attend at the resident’s property. The landlord said it would investigate if there was an ongoing infestation and identify and block entry points. The landlord noted that this may not require removal of kitchen cupboards unless they were identified as an entry point.
The Ombudsman’s guidance to landlord’s when dealing with pest control issues is that landlords should employ expert surveyors and seek input to guide responses. Having arranged visits from specialist pest control contractors, it would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to take on board the recommendations made.
While the landlord was entitled to reach its own conclusions about what work was necessary, the Ombudsman would expect to see that it had been guided by its pest control contractor’s findings, or that it had sought an alternative way of achieving the same result. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the potential ingress point under the kitchen sink, either by removing the kitchen unit, or cutting an access panel in the backboard, or by any other method. This was unreasonable and would have been frustrating for the resident, as she had been informed by the pest control contractor that there were possible entry points under the sink which needed to be investigated further.
On 30 January 2024, the landlord attended to investigate whether any further action was required. The records for that visit show that the landlord noted pipe runs were already sealed and that it removed plinths, and no mice entry points were observed. The landlord further noted the old water tank cupboard was full of the resident’s belongings, and that it had asked the resident to clear this for the next visit.
The landlord attended again on 13 February 2024. The record of the visit recorded that bait had not been taken from boxes and that the resident had not cleared the cupboard in the hallway. The record also stated that the resident did not want the landlord to remove plinths to check the baits left behind them. It is noted that the resident disputed the landlord’s statement that she had not allowed access behind the plinths. In addition, in her complaint escalation request, she stated that she believed that the landlord’s employee was ordering new plinths, and that each time the landlord attended, the condition of the plinths was being made worse and more holes were being created.
The Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to request access to the hallway cupboard as this could have been another potential ingress point for rodents. It was also reasonable to ask to remove the plinths again in order to check baits which had been left behind them. However, there is no record available of any investigation being carried out behind the unit under the sink on either 30 January 2024 or 13 February 2024. This further failure to investigate behind the cupboard in line with the pest control contractor’s recommendation was not appropriate and will have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord attempted to call the resident to arrange a further visit on the 27 February 2024 but was unable to speak to the resident and left messages on voicemail. The landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response that it had again contacted the resident on 22 April 2024, but that due to family circumstances, the resident was unable to allow access to the property for a further visit by the landlord.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to attend at the property again, and it is acknowledged that the resident’s circumstances meant that it was difficult for the landlord to offer any further assistance to the resident from 27 February 2024 onwards.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation amount to maladministration. The rodents were a potential hazard under the HHSRS, and the landlord was aware that the resident had recently undergone surgery and had a newborn infant and a young child living with her at the property. She had also told the landlord of the impact the infestation was having on her ability to live in the property, and the impact it was having on her physical and mental health. An earlier attendance at the property by the landlord or its contractor after the resident had reported the issue would therefore have been appropriate.
In addition, while the landlord made some attempts to treat the matter, it failed to undertake all of the works recommended by the independent expert it had engaged to investigate the problem. It failed to investigate potential ingress points under the sink, and failed to act on the pest control expert’s opinion that the wire wool proofing may not be fully effective.
While the landlord appropriately apologised in its stage 1 complaint response for its delay in attending and ineffective proofing works, the landlord maintained its stance that it would not remove kitchen cupboards to investigate, and therefore was unable to thoroughly investigate the potential access points to put things right.
The Ombudsman considers that it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings.
To reflect the impact on the resident of the landlord’s initial delay in investigating the issue, and failure to fully resolve the issue in line with its expert’s recommendations, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for compensation where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
The resident has reported that the problem with rodents at the property has not been fully resolved at the date of this report. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was invited to contact the landlord to arrange a further visit by a surveyor during telephone calls on 22 April 2024 and 31 July 2024, but she was unable to allow access at those times due to family circumstances. An order is set out below that the landlord should arrange an appointment for its pest control officer to attend at the property, in order that it can investigate any ongoing issues and carry out any further recommended works.

The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct

In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, she complained about the conduct of the landlord’s operative who had attended at the property on 4 October 2023 and 6 November 2023.
The resident complained that on 4 October 2024 the operative behaved oddly, refused to pull out the unit under the sink, made her feel uneasy and did not clear up the left over wire wool after completing proofing works.
The resident stated that on 6 November 2024, when the operative returned, he again behaved oddly and did not seem to recall what works he had undertaken at the last visit. The resident said she was asked to pull out the washing machine, despite having recently undergone abdominal surgery, and that when she said this was not possible, the operative told her that plenty of women clients move washing machines. She noted that she had reported the matter to the landlord’s repair call handlers and told them that she had found him to be rude and dismissive.
In its complaint response, the landlord responded to the complaint by confirming it had spoken with the operative concerned and giving the operative’s reasons for not pulling out the kitchen units.
Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had spoken to the operatives involved, and showed some attempt to put things right, there is no indication that the landlord admitted or denied that there was any wrongdoing, or that there had been an investigation into her allegations about conduct.
When there are allegations about staff conduct, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to investigate the matter, by contacting both the resident and the employee to seek their account of events. This demonstrates that the landlord is taking the allegations seriously.
In this case, the landlord should have obtained the views of both parties and then sought to resolve the matter. While the landlord’s response explained why cupboards were not moved by the employee at the time of the incident, it did not appropriately recognise or respond to the resident’s allegations regarding his comments and behaviour.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 5 February 2024, she complained about the conduct of three other employees who had attended at the property on 30 January 2024. She noted that only one of the operatives had been willing to provide her with ID when she asked them to verify their identity.
The landlord did not acknowledge or provide any response to this issue in its stage 2 complaint response, which was not appropriate.
In consideration of the omissions outlined above, it has been determined that there was a service failure. As such, the Ombudsman considers that compensation of £50 for distress and inconvenience would appropriately recognise the adverse impact on the resident of the landlord’s response to this issue. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure in the service a landlord provided, and it did not fully put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022, landlords were required to:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request.
The code defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’, and goes on to state that landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which residents can make a complaint such as in person, over the telephone, in writing, by email and digitally.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint by email to the landlord on 12 November 2023, so an acknowledgement should have been provided to the resident by 17 November 2023, and the stage 1 response should have been provided by 8 December 2023.
On 12 December 2023, the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2, due to the landlord’s failure to respond at stage 1. A further stage 2 request was made via the landlord’s complaint portal on 30 December 2024.
After receiving the complaint via its portal, the landlord contacted the resident on 11 January 2024, apologising for the delay in its response and requesting an extension to 22 January 2024 for responding to her stage 1 complaint.
The failure by the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint until it was submitted via its portal was inappropriate, and in breach of the provisions of the Code requiring landlords to make it easy for residents to complain by accepting complaints via different channels.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued on 24 January 2024, which was 49 working days after the stage 1 complaint was made, in breach of the Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay within the stage 1 response, which was inappropriate.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 5 February 2024, meaning the response fell due on 4 March 2024, 20 working days later.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 March 2024 and confirmed that it would aim to respond by 18 March 2024. The landlord then went on to fail to comply with the revised timescale it had provided. In fact, the landlord’s response was on 24 April 2024, 56 working days after the escalation request.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord failed to apologise for this further delay in the stage 2 complaint response, which was inappropriate.
Overall, there has been a significant delay in the resident being able to pursue her complaint and bring it to the Ombudsman, and she has had to spend unnecessary time and effort in submitting the complaint via different channels and chasing the landlord to pursue the complaint. The landlord has failed to recognise these delays in its responses at stage 1 and 2 and had not made attempts to put this right.
Considering the delays and failures to apply its complaints policy outlined above, a finding of maladministration has been made regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is appropriate that the landlord should pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint. An order is set out below that the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience and additional time and effort required to pursue her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £300, made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. Instruct its pest control officer to inspect the property and carry out any necessary proofing works or repairs.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.