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

London Borough of Newham (202312675)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312675

London Borough of Newham

26 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. A pest infestation and a request for temporary accommodation
    2. Repairs to the drains

Background

  1. The resident is a flexible tenant of the landlord, a local authority, who has been living in a 1-bedroom, second-floor flat since 2015. The loft space above her flat is communal and not for her individual use.
  2. The resident reported a pest infestation in the loft in February 2023. Between February and April 2023, pest control contractors visited approximately 6 times, placing bait and traps, sealing visible gaps, and carrying out basic proofing. Some bait was taken, but no dead rodents were found.
  3. On 1 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord, saying that the infestation had been ongoing since January 2023 and described constant scratching noises. She said the issue was affecting her mental health, causing fear, anxiety, and sleep disruption and asked for temporary accommodation until the matter was resolved.
  4. On 3 May 2023, pest control officers inspected a manhole outside the building and recommended a full drainage inspection due to concerns about possible rodent ingress from the drains. The landlord issued a stage 1 response the following day but did not uphold the complaint. It said it had only become aware of the infestation upon receipt of the formal complaint.
  5. Pest control made further visits on 25 May and 31 May 2023, during which droppings were seen, and a referral was made to the landlord’s repairs team to inspect the loft space. On 2 June 2023, a survey was completed, and proofing work in the loft was completed on 19 June 2023.
  6. On 7 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint, reporting ongoing rodent activity and requesting temporary accommodation until the matter was resolved, citing concerns about her health and well-being. The landlord replied on 11 July 2023 that it was awaiting an update from the housing team and would respond once it received more information.
  7. The landlord conducted a drainage inspection on 19 July 2023. It found mud inside the drains, a rodent burrow near an external drain, broken inspection chamber lids, and the absence of an interceptor on the outfall pipe. The contractor recommended installing a rat blocker to prevent rodent entry.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the investigation. It confirmed that pest control visits and a motion-activated camera in the loft had found no rodent activity. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the drainage repair delays, but did not find any failures in its pest control handling.
  9. The resident contacted us in May 2024, expressing her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said that she hired her own pest control contractor in 2025, who identified a sewer fault as the root cause of the rodent entry. She also reported that although the landlord’s pest control team recommended drain repairs, no action had been taken.
  10. In June 2025, we spoke to the resident again, and she confirmed that the drain repairs were still outstanding. She also said she had raised a new complaint about the same issues in 2025. This has not been assessed as part of our investigation but noted for context.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a pest infestation and a request for temporary accommodation

  1. In February 2023, the resident reported a pest infestation. Pest control officers visited 6 times from February 2023 through to April 2023, finding evidence of rodent activity in the loft, including bait consumption and droppings, but no dead rodents. During these visits, they left bait, traps, and sealed minor gaps to try to prevent rodent access which was an appropriate response.
  2. On 3 May 2023, pest control officers inspected a manhole outside the resident’s block. They suspected that rodents were entering the building through the drainage system and recommended that the landlord arrange a drainage survey. The landlord’s published pest control service standards confirm that its pest control service is provided to its residents at no cost and that contractors must refer any structural or drainage defects to the landlord for action. Our Guidance on Pests expects landlords to act on contractor recommendations, take coordinated action to address root causes, maintain clear records, and keep residents informed throughout.
  3. Despite pest control’s repeated involvement and the recommendations made on 3 May 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 May 2023 claimed it had no prior knowledge of the infestation. This was inaccurate. Pest control had been attending the property for 4 months and made a clear referral about a suspected drainage defect. This shows that the landlord either did not review pest control records before responding or did not act on the information provided. In either case, the landlord did not take ownership of the issue and showed poor coordination with its contractor.
  4. Pest control completed a proofing survey on 2 June 2023 and referred the recommended works to the landlord’s repairs team the same day. The landlord completed the recommended proofing works on 19 June 2023. The 17-day time was reasonable and falls within the standard 28-day period for routine repairs. The landlord’s pest control information does not set a specific target for completing proofing works, so this response met reasonable expectations.
  5. On 1 May 2023, the resident complained and asked the landlord to provide temporary accommodation until the pest issue was resolved, citing the impact on her health and well-being. She followed up on this request at least 4 times between 6 June 2023 and 9 July 2023, seeking updates. On 11 July 2023, the landlord responded, saying that it was awaiting an update from its Housing Team and would provide a further update as soon as possible. However, there is no evidence that the landlord gave a formal response or considered her request. Without such evidence, we cannot conclude that the landlord seriously considered her request.
  6. Given the health concerns the resident raised and the landlord’s obligation under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which requires landlords to assess and address potential hazards to occupants’ health, including those caused by pests, the landlord should have provided a timely and transparent response. Because it did not, it caused avoidable distress and uncertainty.
  7. In its stage 2 response dated 17 August 2023, the landlord indicated that it had installed a motion-activated camera in the communal loft, which revealed no evidence of rodent activity. It also confirmed that it carried out multiple inspections and treatments and completed proofing works in June 2023. Despite these efforts, the resident continued to report rodent activity.
  8. The landlord missed an opportunity in its stage 2 response to outline a clear, lasting plan to resolve the issue. Additionally, it did not address the resident’s request for temporary accommodation or acknowledge how the infestation was affecting her well-being. The failure to provide a comprehensive solution, address requests for temporary accommodation (as required under its HHSRS obligations), and communicate clearly constitutes a service failure.
  9. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the failures. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for a failure that the landlord did not acknowledge or fully rectify.

The landlord’s handling of the drainage defect

  1. On 3 May 2023, pest control inspected a manhole outside the resident’s block. It recommended that the landlord carry out a complete drainage survey due to the suspected external rodent ingress linked to a drainage defect. The landlord acted appropriately by commissioning a drainage inspection, which took place on 19 July 2023.
  2. The survey conducted on 19 July 2023 revealed several defects, including broken inspection chamber lids, mud inside the drainage system, and a rat burrow next to the drain. Critically, the final section of the drainage line lacked a rat interceptor. These findings confirmed an active entry point for rodents and required repair.
  3. The landlord accepted the findings and assured the resident it would prioritise the drainage works, but it did not follow through. As of the stage 2 response on 17 August 2023, the repairs remained outstanding. Our investigation found that the landlord has not provided evidence that the defect has been repaired.
  4. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy, requires it to complete repairs within a reasonable time, based on the urgency and risk to health. Although the policy does not provide a specific timescale for drainage repairs linked to pests, the HHSRS classifies rodent infestations caused by a structural defect as a potential Category 1 hazard. As such, the landlord had to act promptly to remove the hazard and reduce the ongoing risk to the resident.
  5. The landlord also did not keep the resident updated or provide a clear schedule for completing the works. Its earlier assurance that the issue would be treated as a priority raised the resident’s expectations, making the inaction more distressing. The continued failure to resolve the drainage defect allowed pest activity to persist and prolonged the resident’s inconvenience and anxiety.
  6. The landlord did not act on a known health risk, breached its repair obligations, and did not follow through on its commitment to take urgent action. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the drainage repair.
  7. The landlord acknowledged a delay in completing the repair during its stage 2 response and offered £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, the £200 compensation did not provide reasonable redress because the main issue remained unresolved, continuing to cause the resident distress, uncertainty, and health risks related to the unsolved drainage problem.
  8. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100, bringing the total compensation to £300, in recognition of the delays and the prolonged impact on the resident up until the stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the drain

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. apologised to the resident in writing for the failures we have found
    2. paid the resident £350 compensation, made up of:
      1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of a pest infestation and a request for temporary accommodation
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the drain repairs (minus £200 offered at stage 2 if this has already been paid)
      3. this money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money owed.
    3. provided the resident with a clear timeline for the completion of the drainage repairs and an action plan to keep her regularly updated on progress until the works are fully completed
    4. identified why the drainage repairs, identified as a priority, remain outstanding and what steps it had taken or will take to prevent future delays
    5. written to the resident with its position on her request for temporary accommodation