Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s response to her reports of a mice infestation at her temporary accommodation. We found fault by the Council due to delay in effectively addressing the issue and in its complaint handling. This caused Miss X avoidable distress. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X and to review its procedures.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s response to her reports of a mice infestation at her temporary accommodation. Miss X says the infestation was a health risk and caused damage to personal belongings and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X complained about the Council’s response to her reports of a mice infestation from the end of 2023 but did not complain to the Ombudsman until October 2025. This is a late complaint. However, Miss X believed action was being taken by the Council and did not let the matter, which was ongoing, rest for any significant period. Miss X also did not have the support of a housing officer for some of this period.
6. Therefore, I have exercised the discretion available to me to accept a late complaint and have investigated the period from when Miss X first reported the issues with a mice infestation to the Council towards the end of 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Miss X moved into temporary accommodation provided by the Council with her two young children towards the end of December 2022. The suitability checklist completed in December 2022 noted there were no pest issues at the property. The tenancy check document completed in early January 2023 also recorded no pest issues. This was completed by telephone with Miss X.
10. Miss X says she first experienced issues from mice during the summer of 2023 and reported it to her housing officer around September.
11. The in person tenancy check document completed towards the end of January 2024 identified pest issues from mice.
12. The Council emailed Miss X in early February 2024 to confirm the various repairs identified from the above tenancy check and that a referral had been made to pest control about the mice.
13. The Council says there was an initial pest control inspection on 12 February 2024 following the above referral. This identified low mouse activity and proofing defects and started a baiting programme. This inspection was followed up on 26 February 2024 which identified additional ingress points and recommended the removal of kitchen units to allow proofing works. A further follow up visit was completed on 11 March 2024 which found low mouse activity remained and continued the baiting programme. The Council has not provided the records for these visits.
14. The Council has provided the records for its subsequent pest control actions as follows:

• 25 March 2024 - follow-up inspection with low infestation found in kitchen, pesticide placed and two mouse boxes. Noted still waiting proofing works. Follow up booked for 8 April.
• 8 April 2024 - no access visit
• 12 July 2024 - 2 visit records. First at 8.30am noted kitchen unit to be removed and low infestation in kitchen, living room with pesticide put down and two mouse boxes. Follow up booked 26 July.
• 12 July 2024 Second visit timed at 11.06 am. There are no notes of what found for this visit but a follow up visit was booked for 9 August.
• 26 July 2024 - follow-up visit with minor proofing works completed in kitchen and bathroom. Found low infestation in bedroom and kitchen. Pesticide put down. Follow up visit booked for 9 August.
• 9 August 2024 - follow-up inspection which found low infestation in kitchen and bedroom with pesticide put down and three mouse boxes. Further proofing works recommended, including removal of kitchen units to identify ingress points. Follow up visit booked for 23 August.
• 23 August 2024 - low mouse activity recorded in the kitchen with pesticide put down and two mouse boxes. Follow up appointment booked for 6 September. Noted resident waiting for proofing appointment.
• 6 September 2024 - follow-up inspection. No infestation recorded and case closed. This noted Miss X was still waiting for a proofing appointment.
• 25 April 2025 - new mouse infestation reported. Medium activity identified affecting whole property with pesticide put down and five mouse boxes. Multiple ingress points found, and proofing recommendations raised. Noted outstanding proofing and that Miss X had to dispose of sofa due to mice nesting and she was very distressed about the situation. Advice given about food storage and housekeeping but noted difficulties of having two small children. Follow up visit booked for 12 May.
• 30 April 2025 – a repair record noted living room skirting repair required and large hole in hallway cupboard ceiling, gap in back door in main bedroom and holes in kitchen floor
• 12 May 2025 - follow-up inspection. Proofing appointment noted for Thursday and treatment continued. Low infestation found to kitchen with four mouse boxes (bait taken from one box). Follow up visit booked for 27 May.
• 27 May 2025 - follow-up inspection and proofing completed with no further activity identified and case closed.
• 9 June 2025 - further report received. Technician recorded proofing raised on 25 April 2025 was still outstanding. Low infestation found affecting kitchen cupboard. Pesticide placed with three boxes. Follow up visit booked for 23 June.
• 23 June 2025 - further mouse activity identified together with multiple ingress points. Additional proofing recommendations raised. Low infestation with pesticide placed and four boxes. Follow up visit booked for 7 July.
• 7 July 2025 - follow-up inspection. Mouse droppings located and further proofing undertaken. Noted good hygiene but cluttered rooms and Miss X to clear understairs cupboard to assess any ingress points. Blocked living room ingress point with steel. Low infestation in kitchen, hot water tank cupboard under stairs and behind kitchen kickboards. Follow up visit booked for 21 July.
• 21 July 2025 - noted no signs of new activity in form of bait take or fresh droppings – found historic droppings. Left bait in place to monitor. Follow up visit booked for 7 August.
• 7 August 2025 - No access visit.
• 6 October 2025 - Minor proofing identified in bedroom requiring further visit. Low infestation in bedroom, hallway cupboard with pesticide put down and follow up visit booked for 20 October.
• 20 October 2025 - Additional proofing carried out to identified ingress points. Noted more required as ran out of adhesive Follow up visit booked for 3 November.
• 3 November 2025 - Noted proofing started under stairs but needed completing, no bait taken in water storage cupboard and nesting material cleared and noted front room not finished and further proofing defects identified (some to works previously done). Low infestation to all rooms and baited five boxes with follow up visit booked for 18 November.
• 18 November 2025 - Evidence of mouse activity and maintenance issues recorded with the observation that the whole house needed to be refurbished. Low infestation in kitchen cupboard with pesticide placed and two boxes. Follow up visit booked for 2 December.
• 2 December 2025 - Proofing completed with no activity identified and case closed.
• 16 December 2025 a repair record of issue with back door being sealed by pest control and safety risk as could not open.
• 23 December 2025 a repair record of unit floor junctions being cemented in but kickbacks need to be fixed and sealed to prevent mice accessing void area.
• 7 January 2026 - New infestation reported. Further proofing requirements identified, including removal of kitchen units. Low infestation in kitchen with pesticide placed and three boxes. Noted Miss X reported daily sightings. Follow up visit booked for 22 January.
• 22 January 2026 - Follow-up inspection. Ongoing activity identified and drain survey recommended. Noted proofing works but that kitchen kickboards needed to be fixed and sealed as mice still accessing void. Medium infestation to all rooms with pesticide placed and five boxes. There was no bait taken but droppings in all cupboards and under kitchen units. Follow up visit booked for 5 February.
• 5 February 2026 - Follow-up inspection and treatment. Low infestation in kitchen and under stairs cupboard with three boxes and bait but noted no bait taken but Miss X still reporting daily sightings. Follow up visit booked for 19 February.
• 19 February 2026 - Follow-up inspection. Bait taken and treatment continued. Low infestation to kitchen and under stairs cupboard with pesticide placed and three boxes with follow up visit booked for 5 March. Again Miss X reported seeing mice daily and noted bait by freezer had been taken completely – rebaited
• 5 March 2026 – Low mouse activity recorded in kitchen, living room, under stairs cupboard and hot water tank cupboard. Bait stations serviced and further proofing recommendation raised relating to an ingress point behind hot water tank. Noted that removal of tank needed as gap at floor/wall junction.

15. Miss X moved to new temporary accommodation in March 2026.

Complaint handling

16. Miss X complained to the Council in May 2025 about its response to her reports.
17. The Council responded at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure in June 2025 and upheld the complaint. The Council acknowledged that although there had been regular pest control inspections and referrals for proofing works there were outstanding repairs and communication had not been consistent. The Council offered £150 (£100 for distress/frustration and £50 for time and trouble) and it would arrange a general inspection of the property. The Council also provided advice about contents insurance and how to make a claim.
18. The above payment was not made to Miss X until 7 November 2025 and the agreed property inspection did not take place. The Council has advised the Ombudsman the payment delay was due to a backlog at the time which has now been cleared. The Council has also advised the Ombudsman that no inspection was requested from the relevant service following the complaint response. Both the significant delay in making the agreed payment to Miss X and the failure to complete an agreed action from its own complaint response is fault.
19. Miss X escalated her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure towards the end of July 2025. Miss X was unhappy with the £150 offered by the Council and highlighted she had been living with the issues for two years. Miss X also noted she had been promised a full property inspection but this had still not taken place and she had not had a housing officer since November 2024.
20. The Council provided a response to Miss X’s escalated complaint in mid-October with an apology for the delay. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint and offered a further £150 (£100 time and trouble for delayed resolution and lack of a housing officer for support and £50 for the delay in the Stage 2 response). This response incorrectly signposted Miss X to the Housing Ombudsman. The Council made the additional payment to Miss X towards the end of November 2025.

Analysis

21. It is clear from the information provided that the Council’s pest control service attended regularly to inspect, treat and monitor the mouse activity reported by Miss X. These visits repeatedly identified and reported proofing requirements including defects around kitchen units, cupboards, floor and wall junctions, voids and other potential ingress points. There were recommendations for various proofing works, removal of kitchen units to address ingress routes and a drain survey to investigate potential access points. At the point Miss X was due to leave the property a recommendation was made to remove a hot water tank to address an ingress point.
22. However, there are several references within the pest control records to outstanding proofing works being required which were either not actioned or not actioned in a timely manner. It is also not clear if the drain survey was completed or why the ingress point behind the hot water tank was not identified sooner. The records also highlight the property suffered from multiple ingress points and it was observed it required widespread refurbishment. Therefore, although there were times the pest control visits improved the situation for a period, the mouse issues soon returned and remained ongoing. The records consistently assessed hygiene standards as good at the property. In these circumstances, I consider the recurrent pest issues should have been escalated to identify and address any wider property issues. It is of particular concern that the property inspection agreed by the Council in its complaint correspondence did not take place.
23. It is clear Miss X suffered from issues of mice in her property for a significant period of time. The tenancy check in January 2024 identified issues from pests and these issues continued until Miss X left the property in March 2026. This will have caused Miss X significant stress, inconvenience and frustration over an extended period. I am also mindful that Miss X was living with her two young children in the property. I do not consider the £300 paid to Miss X by the Council is enough to provide a suitable remedy for her avoidable distress. The damage to personal belongings would have been a matter for an insurance claim at the time.

Back to top

Action

24. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Miss X to apologise for delay in effectively addressing the mouse infestation, the delay in making the payment agreed in its initial complaint response and failure to complete the agreed property inspection; and
2. pay Miss X £700 for her avoidable distress.
25. The Council will also within three months of my final decision review its repair procedure for temporary accommodation to ensure recurrent pest issues are identified and investigated including general property inspections to ensure appropriate and timely action is taken to resolve issues.
26. We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because of delay in providing a response, delay in making an agreed payment and failure to complete an agreed action. To prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints within three months of my final decision.
27. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman