Summary: Miss F complained the Council failed to deal with a rodent infestation in her property. We found fault which meant Miss F lived in infested accommodation for four months. The Council should apologise and pay Miss F £1,000 to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss F complains the Council has failed to deal with a rodent infestation in her property, ignored her and has refused to move her to alternative temporary accommodation.
2. Miss F says this has caused her distress, affected her mental health, impacted her ability to work and she has had to stay with various other people with her two-year-old daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Miss F about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
7. Miss F 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

Relevant law and guidance

Duties to the homeless and suitability of temporary accommodation

8. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, councils carry out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
9. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
10. Accommodation is not suitable if it falls below certain minimum standards. The Council must have regard to the standards set in the Housing Act 2004. The Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends that any accommodation should, as a minimum, be free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Councils should explicitly consider a building’s condition and risks to the health and safety of occupiers.
11. Applicants may request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty within 21 days of being notified of the offer of temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
12. Councils have a duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

Dealing with mice infestation

13. The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 puts a duty on every Council to take steps to ensure their district is kept free from rats and mice. The Council must carry out inspections where necessary, destroy rats and mice on land which it occupies, and ensure owners and occupiers of private land do the same. The Council employs pest control officers to identify the extent of the problem and take action to remove pests.
14. Housing standards officers may inspect an infested dwelling to determine if there is any risk of harm to an occupier which results from any deficiency that can give rise to a hazard using the HHSRS.
15. Vermin infestation can amount to a ‘statutory nuisance’ as it may be prejudicial to health. If the tenant's landlord is the local authority, the tenant may be able to take action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

What happened

16. Miss F is homeless and the Council has accepted it owes her the main housing duty. She moved into her current temporary accommodation, a basement flat, with her baby daughter in May 2021.
17. Miss F says she first reported issues of mice in the property in July 2021. She says a pest controller came but the action taken did not resolve the problem.
18. On 24 April 2022 Miss F complained to the Council about the mice infestation, enclosing photographs. She said the mice were eating through food, making holes in clothes and noise at night affecting her sleep. She had found her daughter playing with droppings and had found droppings in her shoes. Miss F said it was causing her trauma and depression, she had a phobia of them and had had to sleep elsewhere at times.
19. Miss F said she had emailed the Council numerous times with no response; pest control had visited and she had paid people to carry out works but this had not resolved the issue. She had found rodents in the traps that weekend. Miss F also noted that the mice were in the car park and green areas outside the property.
20. The Council replied and a pest control officer visited on 24 May 2022. He found mice, put bait down and reported that holes and gaps around service pipes and in hallway cupboards needed blocking up. He also advised removal of kitchen cupboards and plinths to locate any other holes that required blocking up.
21. Miss F escalated her complaint on 30 May and contacted a local councillor. She visited the Council the next day and said her home was not habitable and asked to be moved.
22. The Council sent its final complaint response on 17 June. It said a review of the suitability of Miss F’s temporary accommodation was being arranged. If her property was subsequently deemed to be uninhabitable, Miss F would be transferred to alternative temporary accommodation. Miss F came to the Ombudsman.
23. Miss F continued to correspond with the Council, at one point advising she had slept in a church. Pest control visited four times in June and July. In August she contacted children’s social services due to inadequate accommodation and visited the Council again.
24. The Council replied that its surveyor had deemed the property habitable whilst works were being carried out. It said if she decided to move out she would need to make her own accommodation arrangements. I have seen no evidence of the surveyor’s report or a decision on suitability or habitability.
25. Miss F made another request for a suitability review on 31 August. The Council replied on 7 September that it was satisfised pest control management had been put in place and the accommodation was habitable.
26. The repair works were done on 12 September after Miss F had not been available for an appointment on 1 September. Miss F says the worker found seven more holes and sealed these up but said this would be insufficient and he would report to the Council that the flat was uninhabitable. I have not seen any records of this visit or the worker’s findings.
27. Miss F’s advocate made a further request for a suitability review on 13 September. The advocate said:

“The current accommodation is unfit for human habitation due to the presence of Category 1 Hazard (HHSRS), namely severe mice infestation that is putting Miss F and her 2-year-old daughter at risk. We aver that our client was not provided with suitable accommodation after the Council accepted a full housing duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 in breach of S206 Housing Act 1996 as the accommodation has been suffering from Category 1 hazard from the outset.”

28. Photographs were attached showing evidence of mice infestation, including droppings in the baby’s cot.
29. Miss F continued to contact the Council as the infestation continued. She says it was giving her daughter rashes and causing her to take time off work and use anti-depressants due to the stress. She had also had to sofa surf and sleep in her car.
30. The Council visited the property on 26 October. It told me no mouse activity was evident in any areas and no holes were found. As a precaution it was arranging for additional cover on some of the cupboards.
31. In response to my draft decision, Miss F said the Council had unexpectedly stopped her housing benefit. As a result, she had rent arrears which she was now appealing. She said the works were ongoing and mice were still present around the property.

My findings

32. I have seen no evidence of any action by the Council in 2021 or of Miss X’s reports to it, so I can make no finding on what happened in 2021.
33. After Miss F complained in April 2022 a pest control officer visited and recommended works be done. I have seen evidence of these works being chased up over the summer but they were not completed until 12 September. The Council has given no reason for the length of time this took, so I find there was delay from June to August in the repair works being carried out, which is fault.
34. On 30 May 2022 Miss F said she could not continue to live in the property. The Council recognised this as a suitability review request and said one would be arranged. This should have been completed within eight weeks, i.e. by 25 July 2022. I have seen no evidence of a review being done or the outcome of one. This is fault.
35. The Council told Miss F its surveyor had used his professional judgment to determine she could continue to occupy the premises while treatment was ongoing. But it has sent no notes of the surveyor’s visit, evidence of this decision, when it was made or how, what factors were taken into account, what criteria were used to determine habitability, or whether the infestation was assessed under the HHRS. I therefore have no evidence this decision was taken properly and I find there was fault in the way the decision was made.
36. The Council did not inform its environmental health or housing health and safety teams about the rodents, although they could be a statutory nuisance or a hazard. This is fault. The Housing Act 2004 places a responsibility on councils to inspect where there might be a category one or two hazard. I have seen no evidence this was considered.
37. The delay in carrying out repairs caused Miss F to live in accommodation that was infested and potentially unsuitable from June to September 2022 (four months). This caused her avoidable distress which is her injustice.
38. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, our guidance says a recommendation for financial redress is likely to be between £150 and £350 a month.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss F and pay her £1,000 to remedy the injustice caused.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman