Home / Blog / Pest control in a rented home

For renters

Who is responsible for pest control in a rented home in England?

Guide · about 25 min read · Covers the law in England as at October 2026 · Reviewed on

A landlord in England is responsible for a pest problem where the pests are getting in through something the landlord has to repair, or where their presence makes the home unfit to live in. Both duties are implied into the tenancy by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 11 for repairs and section 9A for fitness.

Fitness is judged on the matters listed in section 10 of that Act, which include any prescribed hazard, and "Exposure to pests" is one of the hazards prescribed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005. A term in a tenancy agreement that tries to exclude or limit the fitness duty is void under section 9A(4). The tenant has a duty of their own, and it runs to the council rather than to the landlord: under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 the occupier must give the local authority notice in writing, forthwith, on learning that rats or mice are living on or resorting to the land in substantial numbers. It is a duty to report rather than a duty to pay for treatment.

This guide covers England only, private renting, and what is now in most cases a periodic assured tenancy. It is general information and not legal advice.

VEYLO X is a software platform for renting and letting in England. It does not carry out repairs and takes no view on whether a home is fit to live in. What it holds is the record: what was reported, on what date, and what was said about it.

I have found pests in my rented home, what should I do first?

Tell the landlord or the agent, in writing, and keep a copy. For a defect inside the home, the section 11 duty to repair it is not broken until the landlord knows about it, but your report is not the only way a landlord comes to know. Knowledge can come from an inspection, from an earlier tenant's report, or from somewhere else entirely, and where it does, the duty does not wait for you. What your own report does is give you a dated copy of what you wrote, which is worth having whichever way the knowledge arrived. A dated copy is not proof that it was sent, that it was received, that the landlord understood it, or of when the infestation started, so keep a note of what you saw and when you saw it alongside the report. After that the landlord has a reasonable time to put it right, judged on the circumstances rather than by a fixed period.

Reporting is not always a precondition, though, and it is worth knowing why. Section 9A(1)(a) requires the home to be fit "at the time the lease is granted or otherwise created or, if later, at the beginning of the term of the lease", so unfitness that was there at that point does not wait on a report. It is also not a duty with a grace period attached. The covenant is that the home is fit at that moment, so where it was not, the breach runs from then, and the reasonable time to put something right belongs to the separate duty in section 9A(1)(b) to keep it fit afterwards.

GOV.UK's guide for landlords on the same Act says the amended Act requires landlords "to ensure that their properties, including any common parts of the building, are fit for human habitation at the beginning of the tenancy and throughout", and that the Act "states that there is an implied agreement between the tenant and landlord at the beginning of the tenancy that the property will be fit for human habitation". The same guide puts the later case in terms of awareness: "Once the landlord has been made aware of a hazard, and is not actively attempting to remedy this hazard, the tenant would be able to take their landlord to court. It is for the court to decide whether the landlord dealt with the hazard in a reasonable time."

Common parts sit differently again. The same guide says the landlord "is considered responsible from when he or she is made aware of the hazard by the tenant", and then that "any hazard located in common parts of a block of flats or a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) would make the landlord immediately liable". The statutory scope is narrower than that summary reads, and it is worth knowing where it stops. Section 9A(6) says that where the dwelling forms part only of a building, the covenant has effect as if the reference to the dwelling included "a reference to any common parts of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest", and section 9A(9) takes the meaning of common parts from section 60(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

So a shared hallway, a shared kitchen or a shared yard is covered where your landlord holds an estate or interest in it, and not where they hold none. Ownership by somebody else is not the test and does not answer it: a landlord can hold an estate or interest in a part of a building that another person owns, and whether they do in a particular building is a question worth putting to an adviser rather than assuming either way.

Nor does the absence of a notice requirement prove a case: the home still has to be unfit on the section 10 test before the covenant is breached. What the common parts rule removes is the argument about who told whom, not the threshold. For something that develops during the tenancy, a reasonable time to deal with it follows, and what is reasonable depends on the circumstances. That reasonable period belongs to keeping the home fit under section 9A(1)(b). It does not soften the obligation under section 9A(1)(a) to hand the home over fit in the first place. Report promptly, and do not assume a problem that predates you, or one that sits outside your own front door, is yours to have discovered.

Write down what you saw, where, and when. Droppings in a particular cupboard, gnawed packaging, a noise in the same part of the floor at the same time of night. Photographs help. Whatever weight any of it is given later, a note made at the time gives you something to work from that a recollection months later does not, whether the council inspects or a court looks at the history.

If what you have seen is rats or mice in substantial numbers, you have a separate duty to tell the council, in writing, and that one is yours rather than the landlord's. It is covered further down this page. Do not stop paying rent. Nor should you arrange treatment and take the cost off the rent as a first move. GOV.UK does recognise a narrow route, telling landlords on its page about making repairs that where they refuse to carry out repairs a tenant can, "in some circumstances, carry out the repairs themselves and deduct the cost from their rent". It does not say which circumstances, and getting them wrong leaves you in arrears, so this is one to take individual advice on before any money is withheld, rather than something to try because an email went unanswered. A claim for an order that the work be done is a county court matter, and which track it goes on, along with what it exposes you to in costs, depends on the figures involved. GOV.UK puts the position on repairs plainly in its guidance for private renters: "You cannot be forced to do repairs that are your landlord's responsibility."

Is my landlord responsible for a pest infestation?

No provision in the law of England makes pest control a landlord's duty simply because they are the landlord. That is the honest starting point, and it is why the answer cannot be read off a single section. A duty can certainly arise. It arises from one of two covenants that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into the tenancy whatever the agreement says, or from a notice served by the council, or from an order of a court. It can also arise from the tenancy agreement itself, where a landlord has expressly promised to provide treatment, and such a promise can bind even where neither disrepair nor statutory unfitness is made out. An agreement can add to the statutory duties in that way. What it cannot do is dilute them, and what none of this flows from is status alone.

The first is repair. Section 11 of that Act implies a covenant by the landlord "to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes)" and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating and heating water. Where the fabric has deteriorated, a hole at the base of a wall, a broken air brick or a damaged drain is disrepair, and putting it right is the landlord's. A gap that has been there since the building went up is a different matter: disrepair means a deterioration from an earlier condition, so an original design or construction deficiency may not be caught by section 11 at all. That is one of the reasons the fitness duty below matters, because it is not limited in that way.

An infestation is not itself disrepair. The mice are not a defect in the building, so section 11 reaches the hole rather than the mice. That distinction is what most arguments turn on. Section 11 is addressed to the condition of the building, so it reaches the defect; what repairing that defect requires, and whether it has been done adequately, is a question about the defect rather than about the pests.

The second duty does reach the infestation itself, and it applies even where the building is in good repair. That is fitness for human habitation, and it is the next question.

When does an infestation make a rented home unfit to live in?

Since 20 March 2019, section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 has implied a covenant that the dwelling "is fit for human habitation at the time the lease is granted" and "will remain fit for human habitation during the term of the lease". It was inserted by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. Under section 9A(4), any provision of a lease is void to the extent that it purports to exclude or limit that obligation.

Pests reach that duty through a chain of three provisions. Section 10 of the same Act lists the matters fitness is judged on, and the list ends "in relation to a dwelling in England, any prescribed hazard". Section 10(2) says a prescribed hazard means one prescribed in regulations under section 2 of the Housing Act 2004. Those regulations are the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005, whose Schedule 1 prescribes 29 hazards. Number 15 is headed "Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse", and it includes "Exposure to pests". So exposure to pests is one of the matters a court weighs when it decides whether a home is fit. The same chain is what brings damp and mould inside the duty.

The threshold is high, and section 10 says so in terms. A dwelling is unfit "if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition". It is a question of fact in each case, judged on the home as a whole. A single sighting is unlikely to reach it. A rat infestation that keeps coming back in the room where food is prepared may well, and so may bed bugs through the bedrooms of a flat.

Where a home is unfit, the tenant can go to court without waiting for the council. GOV.UK's guide for tenants on the 2018 Act says that where rented homes are not fit for human habitation, "tenants can take their landlords to court", that "The court can make the landlord carry out repairs or put right health and safety problems", and that "The court can also make the landlord pay compensation to the tenant". A report from the council's environmental health team is useful evidence in such a claim, but it is not a precondition for bringing one.

What if pests are getting in through a hole, a gap or a broken drain?

This is the clearest case there is, with one qualification carried over from above. Where the entry point is a deterioration in the fabric, it is disrepair, section 11 names drains, gutters and external pipes expressly, and the landlord has to put it right. Where the gap has been there since the building was put up, section 11 may not reach it, and the route in is the fitness duty under section 9A instead, with exposure to pests as the prescribed hazard. Neither duty applies automatically. Section 11 needs a deterioration from an earlier condition, and section 9A needs the home to be so far defective on one of the section 10 matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation. Pests using a gap is evidence to put to both tests. It is not by itself either of them. GOV.UK says the landlord is always responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior, and to basins, sinks, baths and other sanitary fittings including pipes and drains. Our guide to repair duties goes through the rest of the list.

Where a route in has been found and it is disrepair, the repair is closing it. Treatment that kills what is inside and leaves the route as it was does not answer the section 11 duty, because that duty is about the condition of the building rather than about the population in it. That is the practical reason the entry point is worth identifying before anything else is argued about.

In a flat or a shared building, the duty can reach beyond the four walls you rent. Section 11(1A) extends the structure and exterior limb to any part of the building in which the landlord has an estate or interest, which is how a hole in a shared riser or a neighbouring void can become the landlord's problem. Section 11(1B) limits that: no works are required unless the disrepair affects your enjoyment of the dwelling, or of common parts you are entitled to use. Section 11(3A) adds another limit. Where the extended covenant needs work done outside the dwelling and the landlord "does not have a sufficient right in the part of the building or the installation concerned to enable him to carry out the required works or repairs", it is a defence "to prove that he used all reasonable endeavours to obtain, but was unable to obtain, such rights as would be adequate to enable him to carry out the works or repairs". That is a defence to be proved, not an excuse that arrives with the news that somebody else owns the riser.

A shared house can carry a separate regime on top of the tenancy, and it does not wait on unfitness or on a council notice. The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 put duties on the manager of an HMO: regulation 7(1) that all common parts are "maintained in good and clean decorative repair", "maintained in a safe and working condition" and "kept reasonably clear from obstruction"; regulation 8(1) that each unit of living accommodation and any furniture supplied with it are "in clean condition at the beginning of a person's occupation of it"; and regulation 9 that "sufficient bins or other suitable receptacles are provided" for refuse and litter, with further arrangements for disposal as necessary. Each of those can bear on a pest problem, and none of them depends on the fitness threshold. They are not universal: regulation 1(2) applies the Regulations to "any HMO in England other than a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Act applies", so not every shared house or converted building is covered by them.

A converted block of that kind is not left with nothing, though. The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007 apply their regulations 2 to 11 "to any HMO in England which is an HMO to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies", and the same three duties appear there as regulations 8, 9 and 10.

Those come with limits of their own in regulation 3. The duty applies only to parts of the HMO "over which it would be reasonable to expect the licence holder, in all the circumstances, to exercise control", and a duty to maintain or keep in repair means "a standard of maintenance or repair that is reasonable in all the circumstances", taking account of the age, character and prospective life of the house and the locality. Whichever set applies, they sit alongside the tenancy covenants rather than replacing them.

Can my landlord make me pay for pest control?

Not by a clause in the agreement, where the fitness duty is engaged. Section 9A(4) voids any provision of a lease, or of any agreement relating to a lease, to the extent that it purports to exclude or limit the landlord's obligations under the implied covenant. A clause saying pest control is the tenant's responsibility does not survive contact with that subsection when the home has become unfit.

Nor where the work is a repair that section 11 puts on the landlord. GOV.UK is direct about it: "You cannot be forced to do repairs that are your landlord's responsibility", and "You should only carry out repairs if the tenancy agreement says you can".

There are real limits, and the two that turn on the tenant's own conduct are narrower than landlords often assume. Section 9A(2)(a) says the covenant does not require the landlord to carry out works or repairs for which the tenant is liable through the duty to use the premises in a tenant-like manner, or through an express covenant of substantially the same effect. Section 9A(3)(a) removes the landlord's liability where the unfitness is "wholly or mainly attributable to" the tenant's own breach of covenant. The next question is what those two actually cover.

Section 9A(2) carries other limits that have nothing to do with the tenant, and they can matter in a block. The covenant does not require the landlord to rebuild or reinstate after destruction or damage by fire, storm, flood or other inevitable accident, to keep in repair anything the tenant is entitled to remove, to carry out works that would put the landlord in breach of an obligation imposed by any enactment, or to carry out works needing the consent of a superior landlord or another third party where that consent has not been obtained after reasonable endeavours to get it. Section 9A(3)(b) adds a further limit, and it has a causal condition of its own: there is no liability where the unfitness is wholly or mainly attributable to disrepair which the landlord is not obliged to make good because of an exclusion or modification of the section 11 repairing obligations authorised by the county court under section 12. The authorisation on its own is not the exception.

When is a pest problem the tenant's responsibility?

A tenant has to use the home in a tenant-like manner, and section 9A(2) means the landlord does not have to make good what that duty puts on the tenant. In the context of pests, the examples that fit are the ones that cause the problem rather than merely coincide with it: household waste left to pile up indoors, or food waste left out over a sustained period. Those are matters of the tenant's conduct and of the tenant-like manner duty. They are not the same thing as the first limb of hazard 15, which is about poor design, layout or construction such that the home cannot readily be kept clean, and that limb is a question about the building rather than about the occupier.

An alteration the tenant made themselves can bring section 9A(3)(a) into play, but only if two separate things are shown. The alteration has to amount to a breach of the tenant's covenant, which depends on what the agreement says and on the tenant-like manner duty, and the unfitness has to be wholly or mainly attributable to that breach. A cable drilled through an external wall and left unsealed is a route the tenant created, and it is the kind of fact the subsection is aimed at, but neither question answers itself from the drilling alone.

The test in section 9A(3) is "wholly or mainly attributable", and that is a demanding standard rather than a general invitation to blame the occupier. An untidy kitchen is not of itself enough. Where the building also has an open route in, that is a competing cause which has to be weighed rather than ignored, and the question is which cause is the main one. Equally, an open route does not settle it the other way: a tenant's conduct can still be the main cause even where the fabric is imperfect. It is a question of fact, and where a landlord says the infestation is the tenant's doing, it is for the landlord to make that case on the facts.

Do I have to tell the council about rats or mice?

Yes. The duty is in a statute from 1949, and it is narrow in two ways: it covers only rats and mice, and only in substantial numbers. Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 says that "the occupier of any land shall give to the local authority forthwith notice in writing if it comes to his knowledge that rats or mice are living on or resorting to the land in substantial numbers". In a let home the occupier is the tenant. Section 3(4) makes failure to give that notice an offence, "liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale". Section 3(2) takes agricultural land out of it.

Three limits are worth reading carefully. The duty covers rats and mice, and not insects, so wasps, ants and bed bugs are outside it. It is triggered by "substantial numbers", and by the occupier's knowledge of them, so a single sighting may well not engage it. Droppings and damage building up over weeks are a reason to look properly and, in practice, a reason to report, but they do not of themselves establish substantial numbers. The two questions the section asks are what is actually there and what you knew. And the notice goes to the local authority, in writing, which means an email or a form to the council rather than a message to the landlord or the agent.

What the duty is not is a duty to pay. Telling the council does not make the treatment yours to fund, and it takes nothing away from the landlord's duties under sections 11 and 9A. It can help, in fact. Section 4 of the same Act lets the authority serve a notice requiring reasonable steps, including a specified form of treatment or structural repairs, and section 4(1) says that where the owner of the land is not also the occupier, separate notices may be served on the owner and on the occupier.

How quickly does a landlord have to deal with a pest problem?

For a problem that arises during the tenancy, the two duties implied into the tenancy do not come with a number of days. Section 11, and section 9A(1)(b)'s duty to keep the home fit, both require the landlord to act, and what counts as acting in time depends on how bad the problem is and what it is doing to the people living there. A rat in a kitchen is not a loose gutter.

Unfitness that was there at the start is not on that footing at all. Section 9A(1)(a) requires the home to be fit when the lease is granted or, if later, at the beginning of the term, and there is no reasonable period attached to that. Where the home was handed over unfit, the breach runs from then, and the question is what follows from it rather than how long the landlord has.

Enforcement is a different thing, and it does produce dates. A notice from the council under section 4 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 specifies the period within which the steps it requires have to be taken, and a notice under section 83 of the Public Health Act 1936 specifies steps as well. An order of a magistrates' court under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifies the time for abating the nuisance and for any works. Those periods bind because of the notice or the order, not because of the tenancy.

You may have read about fixed timescales for hazards, often discussed as Awaab's Law. In the private sector they are sections 60 and 61 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025, and those sections have not been commenced. The decent homes standard in section 100 of the same Act is commenced only in part, and not so as to apply the standard to private rented homes. So a private renter today cannot hold a landlord to a deadline set by either of them. The Act's main tenancy provisions did come into force on 1 May 2026, and our guide to the periodic tenancy covers what that changed.

What can I do if my landlord does not deal with the infestation?

There are four routes, and they can run alongside each other.

  • The council's hazard powers. Environmental health can assess the home under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, where "Domestic hygiene, pests and refuse" is hazard 15. Under section 5 of the Housing Act 2004 the authority has a general duty to take enforcement action where there is a category 1 hazard, and under section 7 a power to act on a category 2 one.
  • Verminous premises. Under section 83 of the Public Health Act 1936, where an authority is satisfied that premises "are verminous" it "shall give notice to the owner or occupier" requiring steps to remedy the condition, and the notice may require "the taking of such steps as may be necessary for destroying or removing vermin".
  • Statutory nuisance. Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 says a magistrates' court "may act under this section on a complaint made by any person on the ground that he is aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance", and if satisfied the court "shall make an order" requiring abatement and any necessary works. The limb that reaches an infestation in a home is section 79(1)(a), "any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". There is a step to take first. Section 82(6) says that before instituting proceedings the person aggrieved "shall give to that person such notice in writing of his intention to bring the proceedings as is applicable", and "the notice shall specify the matter complained of". Section 82(7)(b) sets that period at not less than twenty-one days for a nuisance of this description, three days being reserved for noise. A repair report sent to the landlord is not automatically that notice, so this route is one to take procedural advice on before starting.
  • A claim in the county court. For breach of the section 9A covenant, where section 9A(5) says the court "may order specific performance of the obligation (regardless of any equitable rule restricting the scope of that remedy)", or of the section 11 repairing covenant, where section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does the same for a repairing covenant.

One practical point about access runs across all four. Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a covenant that the landlord, or anyone authorised by the landlord in writing, may enter to view the condition and state of repair "at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours' notice in writing to the occupier", and sections 9A(7) and 9A(8) impose the same two conditions for entry to view under the fitness covenant. That subsection is about entry to look, not about entry to carry out the work. An inspection therefore needs arranging rather than announcing. For the work itself, GOV.UK's guide for landlords says that "In the case of repairing a property to make it fit for habitation, the landlord should give at least 24 hours' written notice to the tenants and the visit should be within 'reasonable' hours", and that "In an emergency the landlord may be entitled to enter the property on shorter notice". Our guide on when a landlord may give notice before coming in goes through the position. Access that is refused can become a problem of its own, so it is worth offering dates rather than leaving it.

One caution on the insect route. Section 79(1)(fa) of the 1990 Act, the limb that names insects, is confined to insects "emanating from relevant industrial, trade or business premises", so insects coming from a neighbouring home are not caught by it. Section 79(1)(f) is about an animal "kept" in a way that is prejudicial to health, which does not reach wild rats or mice. The limb that does the work for a home is (a), the state of the premises.

Free, independent advice on a particular situation is available from Citizens Advice and from Shelter.

Does VEYLO X deal with pests?

No. VEYLO X is a software platform for renting and letting in England. It does not carry out repairs, arrange treatment, inspect anything or decide whether a home is fit to live in. The duties set out above sit with the landlord, the tenant and the local authority, and none of them moves on to a platform.

Nothing a platform holds settles who is responsible. That is a question for the parties, and where they cannot agree, for the council or a court. What VEYLO X holds is the record of the tenancy: what was reported and on what date, what was said in reply, and the documents either side put there.

Common questions

Can a tenancy agreement make pest control the tenant's job?

Not where the fitness duty is engaged. Section 9A(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 makes any provision of a lease void to the extent that it purports to exclude or limit the landlord's obligations under the implied covenant that the home is and remains fit for human habitation. A clause cannot be used to pass that duty across. The same goes for work that section 11 puts on the landlord, where GOV.UK says you cannot be forced to do repairs that are your landlord's responsibility. What an agreement can do is reflect the tenant's own duty to use the home in a tenant-like manner, which section 9A(2)(a) already recognises, and section 9A(2) carries separate limits of its own about rebuilding after an inevitable accident and about works needing a third party's consent.

Are bed bugs the landlord's responsibility?

Neither the repairing duty in section 11 nor the fitness duty in section 9A names a particular pest, so under those two provisions the question is the same one as for any other infestation. The 1949 Act is different, and names rats and mice only, so the reporting duty does not reach bed bugs. Bed bugs are capable of amounting to exposure to pests under hazard 15 of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005, and a bad enough case can make a home unfit under section 9A. Where they have come through a defect in the building, section 11 reaches that defect as well. Where the unfitness is wholly or mainly attributable to the tenant's own breach, section 9A(3) removes the landlord's liability for it, and a landlord saying that has to make the case on the facts rather than assert it.

Who deals with pests in a shared house or a block of flats?

GOV.UK says a landlord is usually responsible for repairing common areas, such as staircases in blocks of flats, and advises checking the tenancy agreement where it is unclear. Section 11(1A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 extends the structure and exterior duty to any part of the building in which the landlord has an estate or interest, which is how a route running between flats can become the landlord's to close. Section 11(1B) limits that to disrepair affecting your enjoyment of the dwelling or of common parts you are entitled to use. Where a problem is confined to one room and wholly or mainly attributable to that occupier's own breach, section 9A(3) applies to it. In an HMO, either the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 or, for a section 257 converted block, the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Additional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007 add duties on the manager about common parts, cleanliness at the start of an occupation and refuse facilities, each with its own scope.

Is an infestation a statutory nuisance?

It can be. The limb of section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that reaches an infestation in a home is (a), "any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance", so it depends on the state of the premises rather than on the species. Section 82 then lets any person aggrieved by a statutory nuisance complain to a magistrates' court, which must make an order if satisfied the nuisance exists or is likely to recur, and section 82(6) and (7)(b) require not less than twenty-one days' written notice to the intended defendant, specifying the matter complained of, before proceedings are instituted. Two limbs that look relevant are not: (fa) covers insects only where they emanate from industrial, trade or business premises, and (f) covers an animal that is kept, rather than wild rats or mice.

Does the Renters' Rights Act 2025 set a deadline for fixing a pest problem?

Not one a private renter can rely on today. The timescales for remedying hazards are in sections 60 and 61 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025, and those sections have not been commenced. Section 100, the decent homes standard, is commenced only in part and not so as to apply the standard to private rented homes. The main tenancy provisions of the Act did come into force in England on 1 May 2026, which is a separate matter. Until the hazard timescales are commenced, the measure is what sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require. For a problem arising during the tenancy that is action within a reasonable time, judged on the facts. For a home that was already unfit when the lease was granted, or at the beginning of the term if that is later, section 9A(1)(a) gives no reasonable period at all, and the breach runs from that point.

What should I do next?

Put it in writing to the landlord or the agent, and keep the dated copy. Write down what you saw and where. If it is rats or mice in substantial numbers, tell the council in writing as well, because that duty is yours. Keep paying the rent, and take free advice from Citizens Advice or Shelter on anything in your own situation.

Sources

The primary sources behind this guide. Where the law and a summary disagree, the law is what counts.

This article is general information, not legal advice. It covers England only and reflects the position as at October 2026. For your own situation, take advice, and consider free advice from Citizens Advice or Shelter.

Get started