Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate enforcement action against her landlord in relation to a rat infestation and disrepair at her home. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to award the correct banding on the housing register or provide appropriate support when she presented as homeless. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation of and response to Mrs X’s reports of disrepair and a rat infestation at her home. Nor is there evidence of fault in the Council’s response to Mrs X’s presentation as homeless or in its consideration of her banding on the housing register.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate enforcement action against her landlord in relation to a rat infestation and disrepair at her home.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council has failed to properly consider her family’s circumstances, particularly her medical needs and has not awarded the correct priority on the housing register.
3. In addition Mrs X complained the Council has wrongly withdrawn her homelessness application and not supported her and her family even though they are threatened with eviction.
4. Mrs X also complained the Council has wrongly determined her communication is vexatious and has restricted her contact. Mrs X says this has exacerbated her situation and left her without support. The Ombudsman’s role and powers

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Mrs X complains there have been problems of disrepair and rats at her home for several years. However my investigation only focuses on events in the 12 months prior to Mrs X contacting us in December 2023. It was open to Mrs X to raise a complaint about the early events much sooner. In addition, I have not investigated events since Mrs X complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mrs X;
• Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disrepair

10. Mrs X and her family live in a private rented property and have complained about disrepair and a rat infestation for several years. In November 2022 Mrs X asked the Council’s pest control service to inspect the property and assist them. Mrs X also complained to the private sector housing team. She said the whole family were sleeping in the living room as they were unable to use the bedrooms.
11. A pest control officer (PCO) visited on 15 November 2022. Following this visit the PCO contacted a senior Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to request a safety check. The PCO advised there were rats in the loft but Mrs X did not want them to lay any bait. The family could not use one of the bedrooms as there was an overpowering odour of dead rats in the cavities and floor. The smell was now spreading to the other rooms. The PCO said the loft was covered in rat faeces and the wooden flooring soaking with rat urine. Mrs X had told the PCO the electric box had been condemned by an electrician and the landlord refused to do anything for them.
12. The EHO carried out a joint inspection with the PCO and identified issues of disrepair. They then wrote to the landlord in early December 2022 setting out works to be completed to resolve the matter. These works included:
• Instructing a competent pest control operative to inspect the loft and remove all the deceased vermin from the property. And to pest proof all of the cavity walls and any other visible entry points around the building to ensure no vermin could enter the property.
• Undertake a drains survey of the property and carry out any remedial works highlighted;
• Renew / repair door and window handles;
• Repair elements of the internal staircase;
• Adjust the patio door;
• Renew / repair the guttering to the main roof;
• Reattach and loose or missing drain covers in the rear yard;
• Provide a copy of the current Gas Safety Certificate
• Instruct a qualified electrician to undertake an Electrical Installation Condition Report and ensure any remedial work identified was carried out.
13. The EHO told the landlord they would revisit in six weeks to check the repairs had been carried out.
14. The EHO revisited on 12 January 2023 and noted evidence of rat droppings in both Mrs X and her neighbour’s property and old bait trays. The EHO could not tell if the droppings were fresh from a current infestation. They noted there was no smell at the time and no sighing of any pests. The EHO advised the landlord to continue to address the issue and the landlord commissioned a pest control company to re bait the loft.
15. This company’s inspection report notes there was rat activity and it rebaited the area. It said the wet ceiling above the window was possible storm damage and that there were no cadavers found in the loft space.
16. In late January 2023 a drainage company told the EHO they had inspected and found the foul sewer serving Mrs X and her neighbour’s property to be in good order with no defects relating to vermin escape.
17. At the end of January 2023 Mrs X raised concerns that aside from the drain survey very little had been done to assist them. She said she had spoken to a senior officer in pest control who had advised it sounded like a severe infestation and the loft would all need to be cleared out, and they should not be in the property when this was done.
18. The Council responded the same day and set out the action it had taken. It explained that as although the six-week timeframe had passed, work was still underway to find where the rodents were entering her home. As Mrs X’s landlord was taking action there was no breach which would allow the Council to take action, although it was monitoring the situation.
19. In relation to the other issues the Council noted the electrical safety work had been completed and a new electrical certificate issued. And the landlord had arranged for the door handles and external guttering to be repaired the following week.
20. The EHO and a second PCO visited Mrs X’s property on 3 February 2023. The PCO inspected through the loft hatch and noted no rodent activity, they also noted there was no smell evident in the loft at the time of their visit. In addition the PCO noted their external inspection revealed the drain cover was not on the drain to the left of the patio doors.
21. The PCO considered the stain above the bedroom window at the rear looked more like a faulty or blocked guttering issue. They recommended a full CCTV survey of the storm and foul drainage to the property and that cowls were installed on storm water pipes to prevent rodent access or crumpled wire mesh where only storm water can exit the storm pipe.
22. In addition the PCO noted Mrs X had requested the loft be cleared and cleansed. The PCO confirmed the Council did not provide this service but a private contractor could be used and new insulation installed to comply with current thickness levels.
23. The landlord’s pest control company also returned on 9 February 2023 and noted no new evidence of rodent activity. The baits had not been disturbed or taken.
24. On 10 February 2023 the Council updated Mrs X and advised it had been confirmed there was no active rat infestation at the property. The Council also confirmed it had provided details of companies that can carry out the necessary works to the loft space to her landlord. In addition it said the water authority would survey the drains the following week. The Council advised it would review the repairs in approximately two weeks.
25. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s update. She disputed the assertion there was no rat activity as they could still hear rats in the cavities and floorboards. Mrs X was unhappy the PCO had not been into the loft to check, but only looked through the hatch. She was also unhappy the Council could only advise, rather than require her landlord to clear the loft.
26. The Council responded confirming two pest control operatives had said no rodent bait was being taken and that this was the standard way to assess the extent of an infestation, if any. The Council also confirmed that as the landlord was engaging and acting on its requests it was not in a position to enforce the use of a particular contractor.
27. Mrs X’s landlord arranged for a pest control company to clear the loft on 1 March 2023. The family’s Family Support Worker (FSW) was at Mrs X’s home when the pest control contractors arrived. Their records note that Mrs X was concerned they were not specialist contractors and would just replace the old loft insulation with new. When the contractors confirmed they were going to clear the old insulation and sanitize the loft before fitting new insulation, Mrs X allowed them to begin work.
28. However a short while later Mr X raised concerns about the work and the risk to the family’s health. He questioned who would be responsible if someone became ill or died as a result of a transfer of fibres throughout the property. The FSW noted the contractors did not want to become involved in Mrs X’s legal dispute with her landlord and advised they would not continue with the job.
29. Mrs X subsequently confirmed she would be happy for contractors to enter the property and remove the contents of the loft and replace the insulation provided:
• infection control measures were in place and contractors wore protective equipment; and
• the loft space and contents was sanitised before it was removed.
30. The Council advised Mrs X that officers would meet to agree a way forward. It noted the contractors were a bona fide company capable of completing the works. The Council also advised the landlord could now potentially claim Mrs X had obstructed them in their responsibilities, giving them a reasonable excuse not to complete works.
31. Mrs X raised her concerns about the rat infestation with her MP who contacted the Council on her behalf. In response to the MPs enquiries the Council confirmed it was unlikely the rats were coming from the woodland and entering the neighbouring property. It said rats in the loft or internal cavities would indicate a drainage issue. But the Council is only able to serve notice on landlords or residents where there is a confirmed property defect, for example a broken drain or point of access to a building.
32. On 20 March 2023 Mrs X’s landlord served notice of their intention to begin possession proceedings on grounds of abusive and threatening behaviour. Mrs X discussed this with the EHO who advised the landlord was not prepared to send anyone else to the property to carry out the works as they alleged they were being threatened. The EHO suggested Mrs X seek legal advice in relation to the notice and explained she could present to the Council as homeless.
33. The Council has not taken any further action in relation to the disrepair at the property since the notice was served.
34. In October 2023 the Council responded to a further enquiry from Mrs X’s MP regarding the landlord’s failure to carry out the necessary works. It explained the Council had no grounds to take enforcement action against the landlord as they were cooperating with them. The Council explained Mrs X had, in its opinion, provided the landlord with a “reasonable excuse” for not continuing with any further abortive yet costly visits. Officers had witnesses contractors attend the site to carry out works and decide it was not in their interests to remain on site. The Council advised it did not consider the property was unsuitable for occupation.

Homelessness

35. Mrs X contacted the Council for assistance on 22 March 2023. An officer in the Homelessness Prevention and Response team officer wrote to Mrs X and then spoke with her on 14 April 2023. The officer explained that in line with the Council’s housing allocation policy, as a homeless applicant Mrs X would only be able to bid on maisonettes and flats, not houses. The records show Mrs X was unhappy with this and the officer suggested she consider her options before deciding not to progress with her homeless application.
36. An officer spoke with Mrs X again in May 2023. Mrs X maintained she would not accept a flat or maisonette. She also told the officer she could not afford private rental properties. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 14 June 2023 closing her application.
37. In December 2023 Mrs X’s landlord served notice of intention to seek possession of the property under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This matter was progressing through the court but Mrs X’s landlord has recently served Notice of Discontinuance.

Housing register

38. Mrs X asked to join the housing register in November 2022. The Council confirmed in early December 2022 it had accepted her application and placed her in Band 4 priority. This was on the basis she had an exceptional need not covered elsewhere and the private sector housing department were assisting to enforce essential repairs at her property.
39. Mrs X considered she should have higher priority based on the family’s medical needs. She sent the Council medical evidence to support her case. The Council confirmed it would forward the information to the Housing Occupational Therapist team who would assess her application.
40. In January 2023 the Council advised Mrs X it had assessed her circumstances and decided not to progress her medical application. The Council recognised Mrs X had a medical condition or disability but had established that her medical needs could be met in her current property. It suggested the issues with the condition of her property should be referred to the private sector housing team.
41. Mrs X asked to appeal this decision in February 2023 as she did not consider the Council had properly considered all of the medical evidence provided or carried out a holistic assessment.
42. The Council’s adult social care service assessed Mrs X’s care needs in May 2023. Following which they provided some equipment, including a commode, walking frame and walking stick. They also requested an OT bathing assessment. Mrs X says the assessor told her she needed a hand rail on the stairs but due to the rat infestation the walls were too thin and the rail would not be secure.
43. In June 2023 the Council advised Mrs X it had assessed her circumstances and decide no further medical assessment in support of rehousing was applicable. It advised it was unable to award priority where requirements can be met in other ways, such as through access to services. It noted equipment and /or adaptations can be recommended by OTs and understood Mrs X had recently been involved with this service.
44. A care coordinator carried out a further assessment in early October 2023. The purpose of this visit was to assess for bathroom adaptations/ equipment and stairs. Following the assessment the care coordinator advised the housing options team they did not consider bathing equipment would be suitable due to the bathroom design/ layout. And that no major adaptions could be carried out due to the dispute with the landlord.
45. On 9 December 2023 the Council confirmed Mrs X’s Band 4 priority. It confirmed it had reviewed the information provided and had established she did not meet the threshold for additional priority based on her disability needs at that time.
46. Since complaining to the Ombudsman Mrs X appealed the OT assessment decision. The Council completed the review in March 2024. This does not form part of this complaint investigation.

Complaints

47. In late May 2023 Mrs X made a formal complaint. She raised concerns about the Council’s lack of understanding of their situation, poor communication, a lack of action, staff absence with no alternative point of contact, not being offered services, being passed between departments and information not being shared. This had caused the family unnecessary stress, exacerbated their health problems, and led to hostility between them and their landlord.
48. Mrs X complained that although the main issues of disrepair and the rat infestation had not been resolved the Council had not carried out follow up visits or kept them updated regarding any enforcement action.
49. In relation to the housing register Mrs X complained the Council had not assessed their health needs correctly or awarded the correct banding priority. Mrs X asserted that although the rat infestation had impacted their health, not all of their medical issues would be resolved by the repairs and rat infestation being dealt with.
50. Mrs X said their situation was made worse by their landlord serving notice requiring them to leave and the homelessness prevention team not contacting them.
51. Mrs X also contacted her MP, who contacted the Council again on her behalf.
52. On 6 July 2023 the Council wrote to Mrs X advising it deemed her contact was vexatious. As such it would deal with Mrs X’s correspondence through a single point of contact. Anything sent through other channels would be routed to the single point. The Council told Mrs X that genuine service requests would be sent to the relevant service areas but anything deemed repetitive or vexatious would be closed.
53. The Council then responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 31 August 2023. It explained it had taken time for Mrs X’s concerns to be checked against her previous enquiries which had been responded to and for any new concerns to be raised with the relevant teams. The Council then addressed Mrs X’s concerns in turn.
54. In relation to concerns of a rat infestation the Council noted the environmental health team had advised that Mrs X’s landlord’s pest control officer had confirmed there was no sign of vermin. A full drain survey had been done on both Mrs X’s property and the neighbouring property and the landlord had instructed a loft clearance company to sanitise and upgrade the loft insulation. The Council noted this had not been done as Mr X had questioned the private contractors competency and then allegedly threatened them with legal action so the contractors left.
55. The Council confirmed the environmental health team were unable to assist Mrs X further as the landlord had adhered to their instruction and tried to assist with the vermin issue but Mrs X had refused this help. The Council suggested Mrs X either raise the issue of rats with the landlord and allow access or alternatively, she could arrange for the pest control works to take place.
56. In relation to Mrs X’s housing application the Council noted Mrs X was currently in Band 4. The Council had reviewed the medical information provided but could not take account of the temporary issues with their current housing which could be resolved. The family sleeping downstairs due to a possible rat infestation could be resolved by pest control and works by their landlord. The Council advised Mrs X did not meet the terms and conditions for a medical assessment and she would therefore remain in Band 4.
57. The Council also considered Mrs X’s homelessness application and noted she had withdrawn the application as she did not want to consider a flat or a maisonette. The Council was therefore unable to assist Mrs X. It advised that if her landlord was successful at court and served notice for her to leave the property she could contact the homelessness team again. Mrs X would be supported and placed in Band 2 but would only be considered for flats or maisonettes.
58. In addition the Council disputed Mrs X’s claim that it had not supported her or communicated with her. The Council noted that during the previous 12 months her local councillor and MP had raised 11 enquiries on her behalf. Mrs X had also raised a number of official complaints. The Council said that all the issues Mrs X and her Councillor/ MP had raised had been taken seriously and investigated fully.
59. The Council advised Mrs X it would not investigate any issues previously raised and investigated again, but complaints about new issues would be logged and the complaint process followed.

Analysis

60. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council should take enforcement action in relation to issues of disrepair. Nor can it decide the level of priority someone should have on the housing register; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
61. The Council has investigated Mrs X’s reports of a rat infestation and disrepair at her home. Pest control and environmental health officers have visited Mrs X’s home and have advised her landlord on the works needed to address the problems. They have also ensured that the drains at Mrs X’s home and the neighbouring property were surveyed. The documentation shows Mrs X’s landlord cooperated with the Council’s requests to carry out repairs and instruct pest control contractors to investigate the rat activity. We would not in these circumstances expect the Council to pursue enforcement action.
62. Mrs X’s relationship with her landlord has since broken down. The landlord is now unwilling to send contractors to carry out any further works and was seeking possession of the property. It is unfortunate that not all of the identified works could be completed but there is no evidence this is due to fault on the part of the Council.
63. Nor is there any evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s request for support when she received the notice seeking possession of the property. The Council’s Homelessness Prevention and Response team discussed Mrs X’s options with her and offered appropriate advice. Mrs X was unhappy that homelessness banding on the housing register would only allow her to bid on flats and maisonettes, but this position is clearly set out in the Council’s housing allocation policy.
64. Mrs X says the Council closed her application because she said she needed an assessment and would not cope with long walks due to her disability. However, there is no evidence of this in the Council’s records. The case notes and decision letter both record that Mrs X did not want to proceed with a homelessness application as she would not be eligible to bid on houses.
65. The Council has reviewed Mrs X’s banding on the housing register several times. The Council’s housing allocations policy says medical priority may be given where the applicant’s health or ability to manage their disability is adversely affected by their accommodation and a move to somewhere more suitable will resolve this. It also says the Housing Occupational Therapy Team will assess whether any equipment, adaptations, advice, or support can be provided within the applicant current property to help them manage their health or disability needs. Where this is possible the Council would not normally give a medical priority.
66. Mrs X clearly disagrees with the Council’s decision to place her in Band 4 but I am satisfied the Council took account of all the relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process. There is no dispute that Mrs X has a number of medical conditions and she has been assessed as needing equipment and adaptations. The Council has reviewed Mrs X’s banding and explained why it does not consider she meets the threshold for medical priority. This is a decision the Council is entitled to reach.
67. Mrs X also disputes the Council’s decision to deem her contact as vexatious and to implement a single point of contact. She asserts her contact with different officers and via her MP and local councillor was only necessary as the Council did not support her or respond to her correspondence.
68. The Council says its decision was made in line with its complaints policy as Mrs X demonstrated the following behaviours:
• Refusing to accept investigation conclusions and decisions.
• Repeatedly making the same or similar complaint.
• Seeking an unrealistic outcome and persisting to achieve it.
• Having unreasonable, persistent contact with officers or Councillors of the council
• Persistently approaching the council through different routes about the same issue in the hope of receiving different responses.
69. The decision is again one the Council is entitled to take. The Council has confirmed the decision will be reviewed on an annual basis.
70. The decision to provide a single point of contact does not prevent Mrs X from contacting the Council. She is still able to raise new concerns and enquiries which the Council will respond to.

Back to top

Final decision

71. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation of and response to Mrs X’s reports of disrepair and a rat infestation at her home. Nor is there evidence of fault in the Council’s response to Mrs X’s presentation as homeless or in its consideration of her banding on the housing register.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman