Livv Housing Group — case 202440980

Decision Case ID 202440980 Decision type Investigation Landlord Livv Housing Group Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 04 February 2026 Background The resident raised a complaint about a rat infestation at her property and the impact this had on her family. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of a reported rat infestation and associated repairs, including bathroom works. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found: Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reported rat infestation and associated repairs, including bathroom works.

No maladministration in its complaint handling. Summary of reasons Handling of the reported rat infestation and associated repairs, including bathroom works The landlord did not always respond to the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy and infestation framework. There were delays in completing works and in acting to resolve the rat infestation. The landlord’s communication was also poor. However, the landlord recognised these failures, apologised, and identified learning.

It also offered the resident compensation of £600. Complaint handling The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaint policy. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the offered compensation of £600. The finding of reasonable redress is based on this payment being made. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 30 September 2024 The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She complained about the ongoing issues with rats at her property and the fact multiple inspections had been carried out without resolving the issue.

The resident expressed concern that she had been told her loft insulation needed to be removed as it was contaminated with rat droppings. She said she was concerned for her children’s health and wellbeing. 10 October 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response: It explained repairs had been raised on 5 September 2024 and completed on 2 October 2024, which it said was in line with its repairs policy. Its understanding was that rats were climbing ivy at a neighbour’s property and entering the resident’s property via a hole in the roof.

The hole in the roof and an entry point in the kitchen had been fixed. It had emailed the facilities team to obtain a quote to remove the ivy. It said once this was received and approved the works would be completed. The inspector found that the loft insulation did not need replacement. It offered compensation of £50 for service failure, including lack of communication and sending out multiple inspectors. 23 October 2024 The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that all the details in the stage 1 letter were not correct and that the compensation offered was not enough.

She said the landlord had failed to act in response to her reports of rats over several years and had not met her expectations. She stated that rats and droppings had contaminated everything and caused her family to be ill. The resident also requested a SAR for all correspondence relating to rats. 20 December 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response: It upheld the complaint. The resident had queried the stage 1 response saying the loft insulation was adequate and there was no evidence of rats.

The landlord accepted that the insulation had needed to be replaced and acknowledged the kitchen works were due to rodents. The surveyor did not recall the visit but call records show that this was documented. The landlord outlined the various pest control visits that had taken place. It said it understood the presence of rats and droppings had contaminated the home and advised the resident to contact their GP if feeling unwell. It noted that the rodents had disrupted the resident’s children’s sleep.

It apologised for the impact. The landlord then addressed issues that had been raised by the resident after the stage 1 response: It said it would not be reimbursing the resident for replacement of a carpet which she said had been contaminated It outlined its account of events and steps taken to address issues relating to the bathroom works. The landlord outlined its learning from the complaint. It apologised to the resident and increased its offer of compensation to £350. 23 January 2025 The landlord provided the resident with a follow-up to its stage 2 response.

It outlined what actions had taken place since the stage 2 response was issued, including visits from contractors and works carried out. It recognised there had been additional failings since the stage 2 response. It made a final offer of compensation totalling £600 for its service failures. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought her complaint to us. She said she had repeatedly informed the landlord about the rat infestation and the issues with her property and the landlord had not acted appropriately.

She said she had to chase the landlord to carry out works and outlined the impact this had on her. The resident said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failures, pay compensation, and complete outstanding works. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint Handling of reported rat infestation and associated repairs, including bathroom works. Finding Reasonable redress Rat infestation In her communication with the landlord and us, the resident said she had been dealing with rats and rodent infestations over a period of several years. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we have not seen evidence of the resident raising a complaint with the landlord prior to September or bringing such complaint to us to investigate.

This investigation will consider the time period of 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint up to the stage 2 response. The resident also stated this situation had a detrimental impact on her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.

We have not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord has an infestation framework which sets out the steps the landlord will take when a case is reported. These steps included raising a visit for a surveyor to attend the property within 7 calendar days of the reported issue. If they identify works are required to seal up potential routes of entry into the property, these works will be raised and should be completed within 7 calendar days of completion of the survey.

If the surveyor identifies that the infestation is present within the property, the repair raised should include the laying of bait by a specialist contractor. The visiting surveyor should then contact the customer by phone 28 days later to confirm if the infestation has been resolved. An inspection was raised on 3 February 2024 following a call on 2 February 2024 from the resident who reported rats. An inspector attended on 5 February 2024 but this inspection was not completed due to no access.

An inspection was then scheduled for 8 February 2024. The landlord’s records show that this also resulted in no access. The resident has said this was because the landlord had not given her suitable notice in advance of the appointments. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident prior to these appointments. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repair policy, which states that the landlord aims to provide sufficient notice to the resident and will try to accommodate their preferred timing.

Landlord records show that the resident contacted the landlord again on 29 August 2024 to report rodents were present in her property. An operative attended the resident’s property and carried out an inspection on 5 September 2024. This was appropriate and within the 7 day target in the infestation framework. This inspection found evidence of an infestation and identified that a number of jobs were required. This included the removal of kitchen units to fix holes behind them, fixing of a hole in the roof, and ivy at a neighbouring property to be cut back.

The inspection also identified that a bath panel needed to be removed and a hole filled. The landlord raised the works on 8 and 16 September 2024. Records show that the resident called the landlord on 19 September 2024 to chase these jobs and said she was receiving mixed information, including what jobs had been raised and when these would be completed. It would have been better service if the landlord had provided the resident with an action plan for the identified repairs.

This may have helped to manage her expectations and shown it had overview of the works required. Records from the landlord are unclear as to when the pest control contractors first attended. However, an internal job note record shows that the landlord spoke to the contractor on 19 September 2024 asking it to attend. A job note records that the resident contacted the landlord on 24 September 2024 stating that the bait the contractor had placed was attracting more rats. We can therefore determine that the contractor attended within this period.

Given the inspection took place on 5 September 2024, this falls outside the 7 day target in the infestation framework which demonstrated a failure to follow the applicable policy. The works to remove and refix the kitchen units and block up the entry point were completed on 2 October 2024. The landlord’s records show that a job to fix the hole in the roof was raised on 25 September 2024 and completed on 4 October 2024.In its complaint responses, the landlord said the repairs had been completed within the 28 days required by its repairs policy.

However, it did not consider its infestation framework which says work to block entry points should be completed within 7 days of inspection, which demonstrated further failures in the handling of this issue. Another property inspection took place on 9 October 2024 to inspect the loft insulation. Following this inspection further jobs were raised for pest control contractors to attend. A pest control contractor attended on 22 October 2024, reset traps, and laid more bait. This took place outside of the 7 day target set out in the landlord’s infestation framework.

The resident made further reports to the landlord of hearing rats in her property. The landlord said that during a call on 5 December 2024, the resident requested a pest control contractor reattend. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 December 2024 to confirm an appointment for the following morning. The contractor attended on 12 December 2024, within the framework timescales. The landlord’s stage 2 response also addressed the resident’s request that she be compensated for a carpet which had been contaminated by a rat during one of the inspections that had taken place.

The landlord had asked for evidence of damage to the carpet and the resident said none was visible. The landlord said that due to the lack of visible damage and lack of impact, it would not be providing compensation for this. The landlord’s repairs policy states that decorative repairs, including floor coverings, are the resident’s responsibility. The decision to not provide compensation for the carpet was reasonable and in line with the policy. A joiner from an external contractor attended on 14 January 2025 in relation to the bathroom works.

They found rat droppings in the loft. As a result, an additional pest control visit took place on 15 January 2025. This in line with the framework timescales, which was appropriate. This visit identified further works which needed to be completed to help deal with the infestation. A further pest control visit was arranged for 21 January 2025. However, the contractor did not notify the resident of this, which resulted in no access for the appointment. This was not appropriate and may have further delayed the resolving of this issue for the resident.

In its follow up letter to its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined additional actions it had taken to address the rodent infestation. This included carrying out works at neighbouring properties. This demonstrated that the landlord was carrying out a thorough investigation into the cause of the resident’s issue and seeking to resolve this issue for the resident. Bathroom works The bathroom works were first raised in connection with the rodent infestation. When contractors attended on 2 October 2024, they fitted a new bath panel.

It was noted that follow on works were required and a plumber needed to attend to remove the bath so the hole in the floor could be addressed. Landlord records show that these works did not commence until 2 December 2024, when contractors removed the bath. Contractors then attended on 4 December and installed the bath and laid the floor. This work was not completed within the landlord’s target timeframe for routine repairs, which is 28 days. This was not appropriate. The resident then contacted the landlord on 5 December to complain about the quality of the works and the fact they had been left incomplete.

In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord sent a surveyor on 6 December to identify outstanding works. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 17 December 2024 to inform her they would attend the following day. On the 18 December 2024, contractors attended but the resident asked to reschedule for the new year. An appointment was then made for the 8 and 9 January 2025. The landlord’s follow up to its stage 2 response outlines what work took place at this appointment, noting that the works were completed on 13 January 2025.

Summary The resident has informed us that she continues to have issues with rats. We note the resident has since raised a further complaint to the landlord about its handling of her further reports. The landlord has provided a stage 2 response and the resident has the option to escalate it to us if she remains dissatisfied. There were failures in how the landlord handled the reported infestation and associated repairs. However, the landlord acknowledged its failures and delays in its complaint responses and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

It outlined the steps it had taken to address the issues, which were reasonable. The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £600 for its failures and the impact on the resident. We consider that this offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings identified. It was in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy says stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response issued within 10 working days of acknowledgment.

The policy says that stage 2 escalation requests will be processed within 5 working days. If an escalation request is accepted, the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days. If an extension is required, it will write to the resident to explain why and inform them when a response can be expected. This policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Although it required an extension at stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the required timeframes.

It addressed all the issues raised by the resident and recognised its failures. It also identified learning and offered an appropriate level of compensation to redress the failures identified. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping in this case was reasonable. However, there are instances where it is difficult to determine from the available record what the order of events was. We encourage the landlord to keep clear, accurate records of resident’s reports and complaints and how it has responded to these.

Accurate records can help a landlord to identify if there are any issues at an early stage and can be relied upon if a dispute arises. Communication The evidence available to us shows that the resident repeatedly raised the same issues with the landlord and asked the landlord to take action. Relevant risk assessments, action plans, and updates would have helped to reassure the resident that it was taking her reports seriously. We encourage the landlord to ensure it communicates effectively with residents to reassure them the issues raised are being responded to appropriately.