London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202414698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414698

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

2 July 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 the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy under an agreement dated 21 October 2019. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom, first floor flat. It is occupied by the resident and her 2 young children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 1 May 2024 the landlord carried out works to treat a rat infestation in the resident’s property. The treatment included laying out bait and proofing areas around the flat. The landlord raised a further work order for 9 July 2024 to remove any dead rats.
On 11 July 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that following treatment for the rat infestation in June 2024, during which a contractor laid out bait and blocked up holes in the property:
1. the smell of decaying rats had become unbearable and was affecting the resident and her children.
2. the contractor had told her that it was unable to provide any further help.
On that same day, the landlord noted that the rat infestation was coming from a nearby shop not disposing of its rubbish correctly. This was attracting rats which entered the property through pipes and vents. It said that decaying rats were causing a smell to come through to the resident’s property. The landlord said it would liaise with the shop to find the source of the infestation.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. It said:
1. it would attend the resident’s property that same day to investigate smells she had reported coming from under her floorboards.
2. a contractor would call the resident and arrange to clear the vermin and proof any affected areas.
3. it advised the resident to cover the air vents with duct tape until the contractor could attend.
4. it was arranging to have any rubbish left by the shop urgently removed.
5. it would reassess the case for any compensation due once the contractor’s visit was arranged.
The resident responded to the landlord stating that a contractor had already advised her that it could not get under the floor. She said she was unhappy living in a property with decomposing rats, a “disgusting smell” and flies. On 12 July 2024, the resident escalated her complaint stating she did not agree with the landlord’s resolution based on what the contractor had told her.
On 5 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord:
1. apologised that it had not resolved the resident’s concerns.
2. apologised that it had not been able to complete a job raised on 9 July 2024 to remove the rats, due to them being under the floorboards.
3. advised it had raised a new work order for 26 September 2024 to remove the floorboards and the dead rats.
4. acknowledged that the wait for the appointment was not ideal and said that it was trying to bring it forward.
5. advised that on 1 August 2024, it had installed bait boxes inside and outside the building and the bin sheds.
6. acknowledged that it was not a nice situation for the resident and that it could be very distressing with young children in the home.
7. offered the resident compensation of £300, comprising of:
  1. £150 for distress.
  2. £150 for inconvenience.
On 1 September 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had not resolved the issue. She said that she was concerned for the safety and wellbeing of her children living in such conditions. In later correspondence with us, the resident stated that as an outcome, she wanted compensation and for the landlord to resolve the rat infestation and associated smells.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states that landlords must make sure that a home is ’fit for human habitation’, which means that it is safe, healthy and free from things that could cause anyone in the household serious harm. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies pests and refuse as a potential hazard which can result in the spread of infection and disease.
The resident’s Occupancy Agreement states that it is the landlord’s obligation to keep the exterior and structure of a resident’s home in repair.
The landlord’s Pest Policy states that:
1. it is responsible for rat infestations within all units.
2. rats can cause disease and can damage electrical cables, gas and water pipes by gnawing on them. This has been known to cause fires or floods.
3. where appropriate, it will look to provide joint solutions to infestations by working with local Environmental Health Departments.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states:
1. it is responsible for blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment, rubbish removal and other clearance and sanitation.
2. for routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s Decant Policy states the following:
1. it aims to always keep its residents safe.
2. the need for rehousing could include when it must complete works on the home which would make it unsafe for the resident to remain whilst the works take place.
The records show that the landlord carried out treatment for a rat problem in the resident’s property on 1 May 2024. It raised a further work order for 9 July 2024 to remove dead rats from the property. It is not clear from the evidence when the resident first reported the rat problem, therefore, we are unable to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s initial report in a reasonable time. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2024. She said that the issue with the rats was affecting her and her children. On the same day, the landlord identified how the rats were accessing the resident’s property, noting that they were coming from a shop nearby. In an internal record, the landlord said that it would visit the shop to find the source of the infestation. It would also arrange the removal of any rubbish outside the property. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord visited the shop or that the rubbish was cleared around this time. This was a failure in its service to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident that same day. It advised the resident that it had arranged to lift her floorboards and remove the rats. It said it was urgently dealing with the removal of rubbish outside. The landlord also advised the resident of actions she could take to help matters in the meantime. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs (found on our website) states that landlords should carry out repairs within a “reasonable timescale.” The landlord responded to the resident on the same day with a plan to resolve the issue, which was reasonable.
On 11 July 2024 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response. She said that a contractor had told her that it could not get under the floorboards. She also mentioned that the property had flies and a bad smell. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 12 July 2024, stating that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response based on what the contractor said. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, or that it addressed her report of flies in the property. This would have likely added to the resident’s distress, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident to apply duct tape to the air vents in her property until the contractor could attend. The landlord raised a work order on the same day for a contractor to duct tape the vents in the resident’s floor, to eliminate the smells of dead rats. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment. There is no evidence to show that the landlord completed these works. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
On 12 July 2024 the landlord stated in an internal record that the resident should contact the local Environmental Health (EH) team. In correspondence with this Service, the resident advised that she had contacted EH without any success. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord discussed contacting EH with the resident, or that it made any reports itself. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had provided joint solutions to infestations by working with local EH. This was not in line with its pest policy which was inappropriate.
The records show that contractors attended the resident’s property on 15 July and 1 August 2024, and on both occasions informed the resident that they were unable to remove the floorboards. During that period, the resident also raised concerns about flies in the property on 2 occasions. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 August 2024, it apologised and said that it would remove the floorboards and rats on 26 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged that the situation was distressing for the resident and her children and said it was trying to bring the appointment forward.
As the landlord had recognised the distress caused, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed whether the property was habitable, or whether a temporary move was required for the resident and her children. It should have also taken action to address the resident’s reports of flies. That it did not was a failure to consider its obligations to the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 which was inappropriate.
On 12 August 2024 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response. She said that she did not understand how it could remove the floorboards with herself, and her children present in the property. She stated that a contractor had raised the same concern. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaint responses must confirm the details of any outstanding actions. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s query to explain how it would carry out the works. This would have likely caused the resident distress which was unreasonable.
Further, the landlord failed to consider its decant policy which states that the need for rehousing could include when it must complete works on the home which would make it unsafe for the resident to remain whilst the works take place.
On 3 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that dead rats were now in her bathroom, with hundreds of flies, and that the landlord had failed to answer her questions. The landlord responded the next day stating that it could remove the dead rats on 18 September 2024. Considering the resident had to wait 2 weeks, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the flies in the meantime, or any interim solutions or repairs which may have been required. This was also another opportunity to assess whether to temporarily move the resident until it had completed the works. The landlord’s failure to do this was unreasonable.
On 18 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that a contractor had attended her property but was unsure of the reasons for attending so subsequently left. The resident said she felt her time had been wasted. It is not clear from the evidence if the contractor’s visit was related to the work order scheduled for that day to remove the dead rats. However, it is apparent from later communications between the resident and the landlord that the floorboards were not removed that day.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident explained that her flat was situated directly above a bin shed, from where the rats entered her property via vents and pipes. On 26 September 2024 a pest control report showed that a contractor attended the property to treat the infestation. It stated that the contractor was unable to enter the bin shed due to rubbish bags piled up to 5 foot high and noted that the smell from the bins, rats and flies was “out of control”. Due to the condition of the bin shed, the contractor was unable to carry out any treatment.
The landlord had identified on 11 July 2024 that rubbish was attracting rats to the area. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for rubbish removal and other clearance and sanitation. The condition in which the contractor found the bin shed shows that the landlord had not effectively managed the rubbish removal and sanitation of the bin shed. This was not in line with its policy, which was unreasonable.
On 20 November 2024 the landlord raised a work order to inspect the whole building and carry out a rat baiting programme. This was 39 working days after the pest control report. There is no evidence to show why the landlord delayed in raising the first work order after the pest control report. This fell outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales which was inappropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised a work order to clear the rubbish in the bin shed on 2 December 2024. The rubbish was cleared 1 week later. The work order was raised 47 working days after the pest control report had highlighted the condition of the area. The delay in raising the work order was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Over the following 2 and a half months, the landlord raised 2 further orders to clear the rubbish as well as work orders to carry out rat treatments. This Service has not seen evidence of completion of any work orders after the rubbish was cleared on 9 December 2024. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
Whilst the landlord made some attempts to resolve the rat infestation, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property. In summary, the landlord:
1. failed in effective record keeping.
2. failed to follow its own action to liaise with the shop and address the source of the infestation.
3. failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about contractors being unable to lift the floorboards.
4. failed to acknowledge or address the resident’s reports of flies in the property.
5. failed to liaise with the local EH department in accordance with its pest policy.
6. failed to carry out a risk assessment to determine whether to move the resident to alternative accommodation until it resolved the issues, in line with its decant policy.
7. failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about being present in the property whilst repairs took place.
8. failed to effectively manage rubbish removal and sanitation in line with its repairs policy.
9. delayed in its actions to resolve issues in the bin shed following the pest control report.
The landlord did not address some of the above failures in its complaint responses. It therefore did not demonstrate that it had put things right for the resident or learnt from outcomes. After carefully considering the failures identified in this report, the landlord’s offer of compensation is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £400 compensation to the resident, making a total of £700.
We have also made an order for the landlord to contact the local authority’s EH department, setting out its concerns about the nearby shop being a potential source of the infestation. This is in line with its pest policy.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident informed us that the landlord did not remove the floorboards and vermin following the stage 2 response. She said that the property remained infested with rats, flies and a bad smell. She stated that the landlord could not guarantee her that removing the floorboards and vermin would permanently resolve the issue. Therefore, the resident was reluctant to agree to the works, if the rats could return after she replaced the flooring. The resident also said that there were still visible holes in the bin shed where rats could access her property.
The landlord has failed to evidence that the works it completed, or agreed to complete, have resolved the issues the resident has complained of. Accordingly, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect the property and address the resident’s ongoing reports of pests. The inspection should also address her concerns about the bin shed. The landlord should risk assess the property to determine if it is habitable and if a temporary move is required whilst any works take place. It should also set out a schedule of works to complete any outstanding repairs.
As the resident expressed to us that she wished to move to different accommodation, we have also made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her options for moving home if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Code, which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response to the resident on the same day. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
On 12 July 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request 5 working days later, on 19 July 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 August 2024. This was 11 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response in a reasonable time, and in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord issued its complaint responses in line with its policy and the Code. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property. The landlord may deduct the £300 offered if already paid.
3. write to the local authority’s Environmental Health department, setting out its concerns regarding the shop being a potential source of infestation, in line with its pest policy.
4. arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor and/or pest control officer. The surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident, and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
  1. address the resident’s reports of pests in the property and comment on the cause.
  2. address the resident’s concerns about the bin shed, specifically the visible holes and entry points from which the rats can enter the property.
  3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding, which must then be adhered to.
  4. confirm whether the property is habitable and/or whether a temporary move is required while works take place.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her options for moving home if it has not done so already.