Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202331147)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331147

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

30 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leaking downpipe.
2. Repairs related to a series of leaks and subsequent damp, mould, and condensation in the property.
3. Pest infestations in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords:
1. Record-keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement which began on 17 July 2018. The property is a three-bedroom house. The landlord said it was aware the resident has a mental health vulnerability, but no further information has been provided to the Ombudsman about this by either party. The resident told the landlord during the complaint that her son has asthma, and the landlord updated its systems to reflect this.
The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that she has experienced intermittent leaks at her property in 2019. She also said that rat infestations began in the property in 2020. The landlord said it resolved any historic leaks and conducted a regular programme of pest control that had resolved historic reports of rats. In July 2023, the resident reported a further leak under the bath. The inspection uncovered damage to pipes and the ceiling caused by rats. The resident also reported condensation-related damp and mould in her home.
On 16 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord because:
1. There was unresolved damp, mould, and condensation in the property. This had caused damage to the walls which required replastering.
2. The landlord had delayed completing various remedial repairs following the series of leaks she had reported.
3. The guttering had split and was causing water ingress to the front of the property.
4. The landlord had not resolved the rodent infestation, causing damage to the insulation and it had not cleaned or disinfected the property.
5. The property conditions were causing her children to be ill which had affected their school attendance.
The landlord arranged for a full survey of the property on 20 February 2024. This resulted in a significant list of works across the living room, kitchen, hallway, upstairs landing, bathroom, bedrooms, and garden.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 March 2023. It said:
1. It had inspected the property on 14 November 2023 and raised works to:
  1. test the ceiling light in the lounge.
  2. renew the skirting board at the top of the stairs.
  3. renew the plaster under the bay window and repoint the brickwork externally.
2. It had arranged for its contractor to contact the resident by 15 March 2024 to complete this work.
3. It conducted a further inspection on 20 February 2024 and listed a significant schedule of works.
4. Since May 2023, it had arranged for a pest controller to externally proof and bait the property in conjunction with camera traps and there had been an ongoing process of elimination to find the rats. It said there had been no further evidence of rodent activity since January 2024.
5. That there were attempts to resolve various leaks in the home and that it had done this within a reasonable time. It offered advice regarding the heating of the property to prevent condensation and mould.
6. It partially upheld the complaint because it had taken time to address repair works identified in November 2023 and February 2024.
7. It apologised to the resident and offered her £250 to acknowledge the service failures it had identified, and the associated stress and inconvenience. It also said it would include the complaint as part of a lessons-learned session with the repairs team.
On 20 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint because:
1. The landlord had incorrectly referred to the rodents as “mice” rather than “rats.”
2. The landlord had identified droppings in September 2023 after its contractor had visited, not in May 2023.
3. She wanted the loft insulation to be replaced and the droppings under the stairs removed.
4. In 2020, she had found maggots within the property. The landlord took up the carpet and found this was a result of a historic leak.
5. She had reported rising damp in 2022 when she reported the walls needed to be replastered, but the landlord did not act on her report following a further inspection from its contractor in September 2023.
6. The issue with the guttering started in 2019, but despite efforts to fix it then, it continued to be a problem.
7. Electrical issues had started in 2020 but the landlord had not resolved this despite assuring the resident this would be done following the technical inspection.
8. She believed that historic leaks caused the loose floorboards in the property. She was particularly dissatisfied that the landlord would not help replace the carpet that it had previously lifted in the living room to fix the skirting board. She said she could not afford to replace this.
9. She had received no contact from contractors about the outstanding works other than the skirting board at the top of the stairs. She said that the property conditions had adversely impacted her son’s asthma, in particular, the lack of ventilation in the property and it being cold.
The landlord completed the outstanding works on 13 April 2024.
On 8 May 2024, the landlord issued its final response. It said:
1. Its previous response had wrongly referred to mice and it had identified the droppings in September 2023. It stated it considered the vermin issue had been resolved.
2. It would not consider replacing the loft insulation because there had been no evidence of rats having entered the loft space in the last 2 years.
3. It would arrange for under the stairs to be checked for droppings and remove these, as necessary.
4. The landlord also confirmed:
  1. Its contractor had completed the works to the bay window and confirmed there was no rising damp. It confirmed it needed to do some minor repointing to the brickwork and replaster internally because this was in poor condition.
  2. The floorboards on the landing were replaced but some of them were not the same size. It agreed to secure any loose floorboards.
  3. It had lifted the carpet to complete plasterwork historically and that had been stuck down and was no longer an issue.
  4. It had treated the mould in the bedrooms and applied insulated plasterboard. The landlord recommended increasing the level of heating to reduce the risk of condensation and mould in the future.
  5. The landlord clarified that the neighbour privately owns their property. They had disconnected the resident’s property from the guttering. It said it would liaise with the neighbour to have this amended. It also confirmed this was a new issue as the previous drainage issues had been related to a blocked gully.
5. The landlord offered the resident an additional £100 as a goodwill gesture for the delay in responding to her escalation request. It also recommended that its home team visited the property to provide support to maintain the garden and the interior of the property.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation of the issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s reports date back to 2019, noting a history of leaks, damp, and mould as well as rat infestations. This investigation will focus on the resident’s reports from February 2023 onwards, which is 12 months before the resident’s formal complaint in February 2024.
The Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of issues arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider issues while they are still ‘live,’ and while evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The Ombudsman has considered each of the resident’s grounds of complaint separately for clarity.

The landlord’s record-keeping

The Ombudsman notes the landlord failed to provide adequate repair records to account for:
1. When the resident made her reports.
2. When it attended the resident’s property and which of the resident’s reports the landlord was responding to when it carried out some of its inspections.
3. Its findings from the inspections and which repairs it had raised that were associated to its assessment of the damp and mould.
4. Dates for repair appointments in the communications it had with the resident.
5. Dates that some of the works were completed.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs, and communications with residents. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify, determine liability for, and respond to problems when they arise.
As the Ombudsman has not received the necessary detail in some of the repair records, we have been unable to provide an opinion on some of the events that occurred. The landlord has also been unable to substantiate it acted fairly and reasonably and in accordance with the standards expected in the tenancy agreement and its policy and procedures. The Ombudsman has noted at various points during the report the landlord’s failures in record-keeping. Taken together those failures, cumulatively, amount to maladministration for which the landlord should take further action, as set out in our orders.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the downpipe

The landlord has a legal obligation to maintain and repair drainage pipework within the boundary of the property owned by the landlord. This is set out in sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects this.
In August 2023, the landlord’s pest contractor reported that the downpipe at the side of the building had come loose, causing rainwater to spill onto the resident’s path. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have inspected the property following the report from its contractor. If it had done this, the landlord would likely have resolved this issue at an earlier stage. This led to an avoidable delay in fixing the issue, which caused the resident further time and trouble reporting the gutters overflowing at a later stage.
In or around March 2024, the resident reported that the guttering was overflowing. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024 that her neighbour had disconnected the downpipe from the guttering, which was causing the issue. It said it would resolve this with the neighbour as the two properties originally shared the downpipe and was located on the neighbour’s property. It also accepted that this issue formed part of the internal complaint procedure.
The landlord did not provide any evidence of its initial inspection, and this was evidence of poor record keeping. The Ombudsman would have expected to see a repair record relating to the landlord’s findings from this inspection. There was also no evidence presented to this service that it had contacted the resident’s neighbour after the completion of the complaint procedure.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that this issue is ongoing. The Ombudsman notes the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve this matter, and it has not done so. Therefore, the landlord has failed to comply with the tenancy agreement including its statutory repair obligations because it did not maintain or repair the drainage pipework within a reasonable time (or at all) of the landlord having notice of the issue from the contractor.
Overall, there was maladministration with this element of the complaint because:
1. There was no evidence of the landlord’s findings from its initial inspection.
2. The landlord failed to action the report of its contractor in August 2023, which was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue at an earlier stage.
3. The landlord failed to demonstrate it acted on the resident’s reports or made a lasting and effective repair to the downpipe after having a reasonable opportunity to do so.
The landlord’s failures are likely to have caused the resident frustration, distress and upset. On this basis, the landlord ought to pay the resident compensation to recognise this. Given that this remains unresolved the Ombudsman considers, in line with our guidance on remedies, that £300 would be fair to recognise the issue is outstanding.

The leaks and subsequent damp, mould, and condensation

The landlord has a legal obligation to carry out repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes walls, ceilings, and internal plasterwork. It must also keep in good repair and working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. Where there is damp and mould caused by leaks, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that it offers a full and effective repair to prevent the damp from returning. Where the damp and mould is condensation related, the landlord is under a duty to ensure that any hazards in the property are resolved and the home is fit for human habitation.
The landlord commits to responding to repairs as follows (in its repair policy):
1. Within 2 hours it will respond to emergency repairs, and it will complete the repair within 24 hours.
2. “1-day repairs” will be responded to on the same working day.
3. Urgent repairs within 5 working days.
4. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Damp and mould – It’s not a lifestyle’.
The repair records from a pest infestation report in July 2023 noted a leak coming from under the bath. This was caused by rats biting through the pipework which had affected the ceiling and the electrics. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report.
The communications show the landlord was aware of the need to inspect the property to determine where a leak was. This was because the resident had reported mould in the bedroom, a wet mark on the toilet floor and the smell of damp in the hallway. The landlord’s repair records did not indicate when the resident made this report.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have conducted an urgent inspection to assess the leak and any required repairs to the ceiling and the electrics. This is either evidence of poor record keeping or the landlord simply has not taken appropriate action. Either way, the Ombudsman has been unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances to maintain the bathroom pipework or inspect associated repairs to the ceiling and electrics that it would have had a statutory obligation to resolve.
The landlord inspected the property on 28 September 2023, which was around two months after it was on notice of the issue. Following the inspection, the contractor made the following recommendations:
1. The property required new flooring to the entrance, lobby, stairs, top landing, bathroom, and toilet due to rat contamination.
2. The watermark in the toilet and bathroom was from the floor mats.
3. There was a “boiler room dump from the boiler pressure valve,” however, there was no leak found inside the boiler room.
4. There was a leak caused by the brickwork underneath the front room which required repointing to the brickwork joint and plastering inside of the front room where it had peeled from the wall.
5. The gutter was leaking and needed to be fixed and cleaned.

The contractor also replaced the bath screen seal and shower holder and reapplied the silicone because of mould around the sealant. It is unclear if this action was taken because the landlord had identified a leak caused by disrepair in the bathroom.

As the landlord’s repair records did not contain important information, such as when the resident initially made her report or what was believed to be the cause of the damp and mould following the visit, the Ombudsman has been unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances or in accordance with the timeframes in its repairs policy. This was inappropriate because the landlord ought to have been able to demonstrate it responded in a timely manner and what it thought the cause of the damp and mould was.
According to the repair records, the landlord also checked the gutters around the house and found that they were blocked with moss and weeds and cleared them. The repair log did not include the date it did this. As a result, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify the landlord acted in accordance with the timescales in its repairs policy because of poor record keeping.
On 5 October 2023, the resident reported she was concerned that there was rising damp in the property. The landlord arranged for a technical inspection of the property on 14 November 2023. This was 5 weeks later which was an unreasonable delay by the landlord to inspect the rising damp. This is inconsistent with the zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould the Ombudsman expects landlords to take, given this was the third time there had been a report concerning damp and mould between July and October 2023.
The landlord also completed two additional jobs at the property on 20 and 27 October 2023, before the inspection. The landlord’s records did not specify which jobs were completed. This was further evidence of poor record keeping, which impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to verify whether the landlord was actioning any of the recommendations made to it in September 2023.
At the technical inspection on 14 November 2023, the landlord found:
1. the ceiling light in the lounge needed to be tested.
2. the skirting board at the top of the stairs needed to be renewed.
3. it needed to repoint the bay window brickwork.
4. it needed to re-plaster underneath the bay window.

It did not comment on whether there was rising damp in the property.

The landlord ought to have recognised that the survey did not answer whether there was rising damp and asked the surveyor the question or to return to complete an inspection.
The landlord completed the identified repairs on 8 April 2024. This was 6 months after the resident’s reports of rising damp, which exceeded the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy. The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed in actioning the recommendations from its technical inspection and caused distress and anxiety to the resident. In addition, the Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlord’s findings about whether the landlord considered there was rising damp in the property.
On 29 November 2023, the resident filed a damp, mould, and condensation report on the landlord’s website. She said that the guttering caused water ingress to the property, there was mould in the house and that the landlord had not completed the outstanding repairs. The landlord asked the resident to provide more information about the suspected leak and said that a contractor was due to attend on 6 December 2023 for “the repair works needed around [the] home”. The correspondence did not explain which works the contractors intended to carry out at the appointment.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord was unclear about what it intended to do at the appointment in December 2023. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be clear with residents about when they intend to carry out repairs and what those repairs are likely to be. This was also a missed opportunity to review the outstanding repairs and provide the resident with a clear schedule of works and associated timeframes, which could have mitigated the resident’s complaint and the further delays the resident experienced.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2023 and said that it had raised an inspection for lighting checks on 19 December 2023 and the bathroom extractor fan for 29 December 2023. There is no evidence of these appointments took place. The Ombudsman cannot be confident the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with the repairs policy in light of this poor record-keeping.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord conducted a full home survey in February 2024. The landlord produced a substantial schedule of work across the property. This included:
1. Sticking the carpet in the living room down because the plaster had pulled it up during works.
2. Re-sealing the bay window in the living room.
3. Re-sealing the window at the rear of the living room.
4. Overhauling the kitchen unit because the cupboard door was falling off.
5. Re-sealing the back door.
6. Re-sealing the window at the bottom of the stairs.
7. Renewing the vent in the cupboard under the stairs.
8. Re-sealing the window at the top of the stairs.
9. Screwing back a loose floorboard at the top of the stairs.
10. Replacing 3 broken floorboards on the landing.
11. Overhauling the toilet cistern in the toilet due to a broken flush button.
12. Installing thermal plasterboard.
13. Decorating the bay window wall below the window and to the ceiling in bedroom 1.
14. Resealing the window in bedroom 2.
15. Applying mould wash and stain block to the ceiling in bedroom 3.
16. Installing a tumble vent in bedroom 3.
17. Unblocking the drain outside the kitchen.
18. Applying slurry to the concrete path by the side gate.
The majority of the repairs noted above were completed by the landlord 2 months later on 13 April 2024. Although it is understandable that it may have needed time to complete the number of repairs, it is important to note the landlord was already aware of some of these repairs from its inspections in September and November 2023. This meant the landlord took between 5 and 7 months to action all of the repairs. This was in excess of the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy and was an unreasonable delay in providing a lasting and effective repair to prevent the damp and mould from returning. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident because she was concerned about how the property conditions were impacting her son’s asthma.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have communicated any delays it was experiencing to the resident and consider how it could mitigate the impact of its delays. There is no evidence it did this before issuing its formal complaint responses in March and April 2024. This was a failure to communicate clearly with the resident about what it intended to do and when between September 2023 and March 2024. This caused uncertainty to the resident, who continued to report concerns over the outstanding repairs between November 2023 and January 2024.
The resident explained that the landlord had said it would not replace the flooring at the property. This was a recommendation from the landlord’s inspection in September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord carried out the replacement of the flooring. If the landlord decided not to undertake this work, it did not explain its reasons to the resident or the Ombudsman. This was a failure to demonstrate it had acted reasonably by completing all the repairs recommended at the property.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the resident’s complaint because:
1. The Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord acted in accordance with its statutory repair responsibilities relating to the bathroom pipework in July 2023.
2. The landlord delayed inspecting the property after the resident’s reports of rising damp in October 2023.
3. The landlord unreasonably delayed carrying out the majority of the repairs identified in its inspections in September and November 2023.
4. The landlord missed an opportunity to clearly explain which works it intended to carry out and when in December 2023.
5. The landlord failed to communicate clearly about any delays or how it could mitigate the impact of its delays between September 2023 and March 2024.
6. The landlord failed to complete the replacement of the resident’s flooring recommended at its inspection in September 2023. Alternatively, it failed to explain why it had decided not to carry out this recommendation.
Taken together the landlord’s failures are likely to have inconvenienced the resident and caused her some distress. Having carefully considered the Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay the resident £750 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Pest Infestations

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will arrange for the clearance of any vermin in the communal areas. It also states the resident will be responsible for arranging and paying for the clearance of any vermin within the property.
The landlord’s pest control policy puts an obligation on it to rectify pest infestations within its property if it is a result of a structural defect. It also notes infestations of rats in the garden will be the responsibility of the tenant.
On 26 May 2023, the resident reported that she had seen rats in her back garden. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 22 occasions between 29 May 2023 and 15 January 2024. Between May and June 2023, there is evidence that the rats entered through the hole from within the neighbouring property’s garden. However, the contractor did not catch any rats during this time. Additionally, it observed that the overgrown foliage in the resident’s garden that may be concealing entry points. The contractor recommended that the foliage was cut back.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted in accordance with its pest control policy at this stage. This is because the contractor only suspected that the rats were present in the resident’s garden, and this was her responsibility to resolve.
On 21 July 2023, the resident reported that she had concerns that rats were in the pipes on her property. The landlord’s contractor inspected on 27 July 2023 and found a leak coming from under the bath. This was because rats had bitten through the pipes and had caused damage to the ceiling below and the electrics.
When the contractor re-attended on 30 July 2023, it noted rodents were gaining access by entering through a hole around the waste pipe on the first floor. As a result, the contractor took temporary measures to proof the internal hole around the waste pipe with wire wool and placed bait underneath the bath area. The contractor recommended that:
1. The foliage around the property needed to be cut back to expose the brickwork.
2. The loft area needed checking.
There is no evidence the landlord inspected the loft area. In addition, there is no evidence the resident cut back the foliage. The Ombudsman considers neither party followed the contractor’s recommendations, and this was a missed opportunity to rectify the rodent issue at an earlier stage.
The resident reported that she could hear the rats in the property on 10 August 2023. The landlord’s contractor re-attended on 18 August 2023. The contractor found that the proofing around the waste pipe continued to be effective, but there was an entry point through the air vent under the stairs. The contractor also said it had fitted traps underneath the bath and the kitchen unit. It recommended:
1. The air vent needed to be replaced underneath the stairs and the area cleaned and disinfected.
2. The kitchen units and underneath the bath needed to be cleaned and disinfected as they were areas that had been affected.
3. The foliage needed cutting down as there could be more entry points in the overgrown areas between the resident and the neighbour’s property.
While the foliage would have been the responsibility of the resident, there was no evidence that the landlord acted on the cleaning recommendations of the contractor. This was a failure because the landlord did not act reasonably to ensure the property was clean, disinfected, and free from potential health and safety hazards. Although the landlord replaced the air vent on 13 April 2024, this was a significant delay in ensuring it had adequately proofed an entry point to the property.
On 19 October 2023, the resident reported that she had found fresh rat droppings under the stairs. The landlord’s contractor attended on 28 October 2023 and determined that the camera had been deactivated due to a lack of activity. It is unclear from the report where this camera was located. However, the contractor also found the rats had chewed the washing machine waste pipe. The contractor said it baited the kitchen and recommended:
1. Proofing the downpipe area and replacing or repairing the pipes.
2. The landlord checked the drains. It is unclear if this were to check for rodent activity or leaks.
3. There was debris that the landlord’s contractors had left down the side of the house which had been there for over a month. It said this may have been harbouring rodents.
The recommendations suggested there was a suspected entry point to the kitchen around the downpipe area. There is no evidence the landlord completed proofing or repairs to these areas. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted unreasonably because it did not demonstrate it followed the recommendations of its contractor to resolve the rat infestation.
In addition, the contractor’s previous reports did not indicate that it had left a camera at the property. This was evidence of poor record-keeping because the Ombudsman would have expected the report to detail all actions involved in the treatment of the rats.
The evidence shows the contractor re-attended on 11 November 2023. However, it could not gain access to the property. It did not explain why this was the case or what it had intended to do during the appointment, and this was evidence of poor record-keeping. It noted that the debris remained at the side of the house and that the neighbour had discarded furniture and food into their back garden. The Ombudsman can find no evidence the landlord acted to clear the debris. This was a further failure to demonstrate it had acted on the recommendations of its contractor to prevent the rodents from returning to the property. It is also not clear what the landlord did about the discarded food and furniture.
On 14 November 2023, during a technical inspection of the property, the landlord reported that it had seen mice droppings under the stairs. The contractor attended on 2 December 2023, but the report only contained information relating to a blocked external drain. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord acted reasonably to satisfy its concerns about rodent activity at the property in November 2023.
The resident reported on 22 December 2023 that she thought the rats were gaining access through her drains and a hole in the vent under the stairs. When the contractor attended on 4 January 2024, it said the activity under the stairs was old. It also said the loft was clear of rodent activity. The contractor recommended:
1. It monitored the property for activity for two weeks.
2. Underneath the stairs be cleaned and proofed after that.
3. Underneath the bath be cleared, cleaned, and proofed.
There is no evidence the landlord completed the recommended cleaning of the property, despite being aware of the need to clean under the bath, the stairs and behind the kitchen units in August 2023. The landlord consistently failed to act in accordance with its pest control policy to complete treatment of the affected areas. This caused distress and anxiety to the resident because she thought the droppings was evidence that the rats had returned to her property.
Further, although the landlord checked the loft area, this was 5 months after the original recommendation made by the contractor in July 2023. This was an unreasonable delay by the landlord to act on the recommendations of its contractor.
The contractor confirmed on 15 January 2024 and 25 January 2024 that it had seen no further activity of rodents. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had no further concerns with rodent activity.
Overall, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint because:
1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the majority of the recommendations made by its contractor to rat-proof the property.
2. The landlord failed to demonstrate it acted on all the recommendations of its contractor.
3. The landlord’s record-keeping was poor because it was missing key information in various reports.
The handling of the rodents is likely to have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. Considering the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, compensation of £500 would be fair to recognise the impact.

Complaint Handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must:
1. issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
2. Issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy reflects these timescales.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 19 working days of the resident’s complaint. The resident received a letter from the landlord, explaining that it needed additional time to address her complaint. The evidence shows the landlord provided the formal response within the new timeframes. The landlord’s action complied with the Code, which stipulates that landlords must clarify to residents when more time is needed to address complaints and provide a specific timeframe for receiving the response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 33 working days of the resident’s request to escalate. There is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of its delay. Although this was not compliant with the timeframes set out in the Code, the landlord recognised the delay in its formal response, apologised, and offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable redress because it recognised its failure and tried to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record-keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking downpipe.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs related to a series of leaks and subsequent damp, mould, and condensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the pest infestations in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,550 comprising of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted or made a lasting and effective repair to the resident’s downpipe.
  2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s unreasonable delay in actioning repairs related to leaks, damp, mould and condensation between September 2023 and April 2024.
  3. £500 or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s unreasonable delays in actioning the recommendations of its pest contractor between August 2023 and April 2024.

This is in addition to the compensation already awarded during the complaint procedure. The landlord must pay the resident any compensation owed to the resident as part of the complaints procedure if it has not already done so.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must conduct a case review to identify:
1. Why its repair logs did not clearly record important details including:
  1. The date of the resident’s reports.
  2. The dates of some of the appointments documented in correspondence with the resident.
  3. The findings from all its inspections including an assessment of the cause of the damp and mould.
  4. The dates it conducted all its inspections and the follow-on works required.
  5. All the pest control treatment and monitoring measures.
2. How it intends to ensure this information is recorded and/or shared with the Ombudsman in a clear format in the future.
3. Why all the repairs identified in September 2023 and November 2023 were not actioned or monitored promptly.
4. Why it did not explain or attempt to mitigate its delays in completing repairs.

The landlord must set out its findings in a report and provide a copy to the Ombudsman and the resident within 56 days of the date of this determination. The report must clearly set out its learning and how it will prevent similar failures in future.

Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure completion of outstanding works recommended by its contractors, including:
1. Clean and disinfect any existing affected areas in the property.
2. Clear the debris left by its contractor that may have been a place the rats were harbouring, if it has not already done so.
3. Ensure that the downpipe area near the kitchen is proofed if it has not already been done.
4. Install replacement flooring to the entrance, lobby, stairs, top landing, bathroom, and toilet as rat contamination had affected these areas.
5. Alternatively, the landlord must write to the resident and Ombudsman to explain why it does not intend to carry out the recommendations of its contractor and the reasons behind any decision it has come to.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the orders at para 79 within 56 days of the date of this determination.