Stonewater Limited (202340286)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340286

Stonewater Limited

1 October 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bed bugs within her flat and in the communal areas of the property
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background and summary of events

The resident lived in a 2-bedroom flat in a 3-storey block of 41 flats. She held an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, from 2014-2025. The landlord had recorded the resident as vulnerable because she had a health condition.
On 27 April 2022, the resident reported an issue with the presence of bed bugs at the property. The landlord arranged a job with its contractor. A few months later, in July 2022, the landlord discussed treatment options with its contractor to eradicate bed bugs from the wider block.
Between April 2022 and December 2024 the landlord instructed various contractors to carry out multiple pest control treatments and monitoring in its attempts to resolve the infestation throughout the building.
The resident complained to the landlord on 16 September 2023 (referred to in this report as “complaint 1”). She said the issue of bed bugs in the building and her property was having a significant impact on her wellbeing.
On 9 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to complaint 1. It said that it had arranged for its pest control contractor to attend and offered £25 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident requested the escalation of complaint 1 to stage 2 on 13 October 2023. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had misinterpreted her complaint.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord issued its final complaint response for complaint 1. It continued to refer to fleas in its response. It acknowledged communication failings and said it was introducing a new pest management policy to improve its services in this area. It offered £275 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
Communication between the landlord and resident continued, as did visits by its contractors, after the close of the landlord’s internal complaints process for complaint 1. In May 2024 the resident raised a second complaint about the same issue (referred to in this report as “complaint 2”).
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response for complaint 2 on 20 June 2024. In its response, the landlord offered £275 compensation. It apologised and said it would be implementing measures to improve its services.
The landlord issued its final complaint response for complaint 2 on 5 August 2024. It summarised its actions from August 2022 to July 2024 and apologised for its failings. It offered a revised total of £1600 compensation and said it planned to improve its processes and communication systems.
The resident ended her tenancy on 16 March 2025 by way of mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

On reviewing the evidence, we found the resident had raised a second complaint with the landlord about the same substantive issue (communication about a bed bug infestation) 8 months after her first complaint. The resident has not brought this complaint separately to the Ombudsman. Requiring the resident to open a new case with this Service would be an inappropriate use of our resources and the landlord’s and resident’s time. The landlord referenced its activity across the timeline of both complaints in its stage 2 response for the second complaint. Its final offer of redress and compensation is associated with entire timeline, and therefore it is relevant to the overall context and appropriate to take this into consideration.
Due to the above, we have decided to include both complaints and wider timeline within our investigation. Because the substantive issue had remained unresolved, we have also considered activity after the close of the landlord’s internal complaints process for the resident’s second complaint.
As part of our investigation, we refer to the landlord’s actions in relation to other areas of the building, including other residents’ flats. We cannot comment on the landlord’s handling of bed bugs at other resident’s properties because it is our role to investigate complaints brought to us by individual residents. We cannot investigate issues which may have affected other residents unless those residents make their own complaints to the landlord and ask the Ombudsman to investigate their concerns. We have however referred to contractor activity across the building to provide further context into the landlord’s approach.
In several of the resident’s communications with the landlord, she had said the bed bug infestation was affecting her mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We will therefore not consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. We will consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bed bugs within her flat and in the communal areas of the property

The resident’s tenancy agreement made no reference to pest control responsibilities.
Prior to January 2024, the landlord did not have a pest policy in place. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it would complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. We have based some of our assessment on these timescales in the absence of a pest policy.
The landlord’s current pest policy says it will treat communal areas for bed bugs, but individual homes are the responsibility of the resident to treat/manage (with exceptions for some vulnerable residents). The guidance that was available to its residents at the time of the initial complaint (in the landlord’s publication “Getting your home repaired – a guide for customers”), gave similar advice.
The resident first reported the presence of bed bugs in April 2022 and the landlord raised an order in response with its contractor. In July 2022 the landlord raised an order with its contractor to treat bed bugs in the communal hallway. By August 2022 the landlord had had conversations internally and with its contractor. The discussions were centred around identifying the extent of the infestation and agreeing an action plan to address the issue.
The landlords contact records show that after the resident’s first report in April 2022, she did not make any further reports until September 2023. The evidence suggests the infestation had remained throughout the communal areas and wider block, because in August 2022 the landlord had asked its contractor to quote to treat all 41 flats in the block. This included an order to steam and spray all the flats and communal areas. This was a reasonable approach in an attempt to eradicate the infestation across the building.
In August 2022 the landlord changed its position, and in an internal email said although it had already carried out work outside of its obligations, it would only continue with the treatment for communal areas where evidence showed a presence of bed bugs. It said it would not consider any decants, because bed bugs did not pose a risk to health or life and that residents should be referred to other agencies or services for assistance. It said it would continue to support vulnerable residents with treatment and carry out any necessary structural repairs if this was found to be a contributing factor.
On 16 September 2023, the resident told the landlord she had found bed bugs in her home and she had been bitten. The landlord exercised discretion and raised an order with its pest control contractor. The specialist contractor was best suited to deal with any possible infestation but was slow to respond. The landlord had promised the resident its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment, but no timescales were given. She had chased the landlord 3 times for an update on her appointment before the contractor visited the property 33 calendar days later, which was outside of its standard repair timescales. In the meantime, the resident raised her first complaint (complaint 1) about the impact the bed bugs were having on her.
The landlord’s contractors visited the resident’s flat 6 times between October 2023 and September 2024. During this time various specialist contractors carried out treatments including spraying and heat treatment, as well as monitoring the infestation within the resident’s flat.
Between September 2023 and February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times. She said she was suffering from stress due to the infestation. She commented it was affecting her mental health and was “driving (her) crazy”, “making (her) life hell”, she was “mentally drained” and at the “end of (her) tether”. Our pest guidance says all reports of pest infestation should be taken seriously and not be dismissed. While it is evident the landlord acted in response to the reports of bed bugs, it did not respond with sufficient urgency considering the residents vulnerability and reported impact on her wellbeing.
In November 2023 the resident asked the landlord if it would pay for her to stay elsewhere until the bed bugs had been eradicated. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s enquiry, which was unreasonable. While it was not obliged to offer the resident temporary accommodation, it would have been appropriate to carry out a risk assessment to determine whether this was something it could have considered, given that it had it recorded that the resident had a vulnerability.
The landlord instructed monitoring and various treatment works with its contractors within the communal areas and at a number of the flats between April 2022 and October 2024. Various contractors made a total of 31 visits across the block during this time. The landlord made reasonable attempts to manage the issue but could have been more pro-active in overseeing this. It generally responded well by raising orders with its contractors, but the evidence shows it did not have sufficient oversight of the contractor’s attendance timescales or scheduling activities with the resident.
In September 2024, the landlord raised an order with a different contractor to steam and spray all the flats and communal areas in an attempt to prevent reinfestation. Our guidance states it is best practice to investigate a whole area as a precaution and consider multiple reports of pests in the same block or locality. This approach was thorough and resolution focused. However, it took too long to get to this point. It would have been reasonable to take this position earlier, having been aware of an infestation in at least 2 flats and communal areas since August 2022, almost 2 years earlier.
In October 2024, the landlord’s contractor reported they were unable to access, or were refused access to, 9 of the 41 flats. They identified the 3 worst affected flats and reported they had almost certainly found the source of the infestation in one of them. For treatments to be effective, the contractor would need access to all infested properties in the block. However, the landlord experienced issues with some residents refusing access and the Ombudsman understands this would have delayed the process and prolonged an infestation.
We understand that the nature of pest infestations means they can take some time to be resolved and we note the landlord acted reasonably by raising orders with specialist contractors and relying on expert advice. However it is key to keep the resident updated during this time and be clear with communication and timescales to manage expectations. Whilst the landlord may not have been able to provide a definitive timeframe, it should have been more proactive and open in its communications with the resident.
The landlord’s communication with the resident fell below the expected standard. Overall, it failed to respond to the majority of the emails and phone calls from the resident, and when it did respond, the communication often lacked detail, direction or information. The landlord’s delays in responding and frequent failure to respond to the resident’s concerns undoubtedly caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
This is particularly evident between October 2023 to February 2024 when the resident contacted the landlord 21 times to express her concerns. During this time, the landlord made 2 call attempts (one of which was to discuss compensation) and sent its responses for complaint 1. There were 4 “holding” emails sent to the resident during this time which promised further information or contact from other teams. These emails did not address her concerns and there is no evidence they were followed up. This was unreasonable and not in line with its customer commitments for communication.
In February 2024 the landlord did take appropriate action when it spoke with the resident and listened to her concerns. It then swiftly raised an order for a heat treatment in her property which was completed a week later. This was reasonable, but again it took the landlord too long to action this.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed the resident’s flat was free from bed bugs on a visit in February 2024. The landlord called the resident in July 2024 and she confirmed there were no bed bugs in her flat at that time. Following this, the resident did not report any further bed bugs in her flat but did raise concerns about the presence of bed bugs in the communal areas. The landlord instructed a different specialist contractor and its response improved significantly. There is evidence of numerous visits and treatments being carried out in the communal areas and other residents’ flats over the following months.
From August 2024, there was a noticeable improvement in the landlord’s communication with the resident. It promised to call her and then did so. It also promised to carry out checks to her property following the latest treatment to check the property was still free from bed bugs. It made attempts to do this in July, September and December 2024, which is as far as the records available to this Service go. Landlord records show the infestation was still active in other areas of the block including the hallway outside the resident’s home. Its specialist contractor attended numerous times to treat the communal areas and other residents’ flats between September 2024 and December 2024.
In the resident’s first complaint, she said she felt the landlord should have informed her it was aware of an issue with bed bugs in the building. The landlord has since introduced its pest management policy, which shows it listened and acted upon the resident’s concerns. Its new policy says it will inform all residents within a block if there is an outbreak in a communal area. The landlord has demonstrated learning from this case, and its pest management policy is clear on what it will do and what its responsibilities are.
Overall, whilst the landlord was ultimately unsuccessful in resolving the problem, it showed it made considerable efforts over the period investigated. It engaged qualified contractors in its attempts to eradicate the bed bugs. The landlord evidenced that while it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when it offered to treat the infestation within her property, it did not do enough to assure her it was responding appropriately. Its communication was consistently poor over a prolonged period, and the landlord did not acknowledge her distress or the impact the situation was having on her for too long, which was a failing.
In its final response to complaint 2, the landlord acknowledged its shortcomings, apologised for service failures, and offered compensation. Overall, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its communication was below the expected standard, and there were delays in responding to the resident’s concerns. It said it had learned from this case and had planned measures to ensure its service would be improved in the future. It also offered total compensation across the 2 complaints of £1,875 for its failures.
Our remedies guidance notes that compensation between £600-£1,000 is appropriate for instances of maladministration where there has been a significant impact on the resident. There were multiple and repeated failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, which, in the absence of its apology and offer of compensation, would have amounted to maladministration. However, given the steps it has taken to recognise its failings and put things right, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bed bugs. This finding is reliant on the compensation being paid in full to the resident, if it has not been already.

The landlords handling of the resident’s associated complaint

Complaint 1, stage 1:
1. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 September 2023. The resident indicated she wanted to make a complaint during a live chat with the landlord and was told to email the customer team to raise her complaint. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy which says that any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, will be treated as a complaint.
2. The landlord’s response incorrectly referred to fleas when the resident’s complaint was about bed bugs.
3. The response also said she had complained she was not told about the infestation before she moved in, which incorrect. She had lived in the property for many years and complained that the landlord had not informed her that there was a known infestation in the building.
4. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in bringing her complaint.
Complaint 1, stage 2:
1. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 October 2023.
2. The landlord tried a call to the resident the same day. It acknowledged her escalation on 24 October, 7 working days later. This was outside of its policy timescales. In the acknowledgement, the landlord offered £100 compensation for poor complaint handling.
3. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 November 2023, 17 working days later. The landlord’s policy says it will usually respond within 10 working days and will agree an extension if it needed longer. The landlord did not agree an extension with the resident, contrary to its policy.
4. The landlord’s stage 2 response again referred to fleas, which was not the subject of the resident’s complaint. The landlord had told the resident on 13 October that it was sorry for getting the complaint definition wrong and said it would correct this at stage 2, which it failed to do.
5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident an additional £175 compensation, bringing the total offer to £275. This was broken down as £100 for complaint handling, £100 for poor communication and £75 for her time and trouble.
Overall, the landlord’s responses to complaint 1 were not appropriate. The landlord misinterpreted the complaint and did not correct this at stage 2 despite promising to do so. It did not follow its own policy in accepting the complaint and subsequently delayed in acknowledging and responding at stage 2.
Complaint 2, stage 1:
1. The resident raised her second complaint on 16 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this 5 working days later, in line with its policy timescales.
2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2024, 25 working days later. We have seen evidence that the landlord notified the resident that it needed an extension but it has not provided the details of this request.
3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered a sincere apology, in line with our apologies guidance. It made a revised offer of £275 compensation which was broken down into £75 for failure to follow process/policy, £125 for inconvenience caused, and £75 for the delay in its complaint response.
4. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would be implementing measures to improve its responses and communication in the future.
Complaint 2, stage 2
1. There is no evidence provided to show when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 July 2024 and issued its stage 2 response on 5 August 2024.
2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord summarised its actions from August 2022 to July 2024, the timeline which spanned both complaints. It offered empathy for the resident’s experience and its apology was sincere and in line with our apologies guidance. It accepted responsibility for its failings and offered revised compensation of £1600. This comprised of £1250 for inconvenience, time and trouble, £50 for poor communication and £25 for failing to follow process (plus the £275 previously offered in its stage 1 response). It said it planned to improve its communication systems where infestations affect a block and had already made changes to its pest policy in July 2024 to reflect this. It said it had also appointed a new contractor for pest control. The landlord’s complaint responses for the second complaint showed genuine regret and sincerity.
Overall, there were failings in the landlords handling of the resident’s first complaint. There were delays in its acknowledgements and responses, and it made errors in interpreting her complaint grounds. Had it not been for the offer of £100 compensation at this stage, we would have found service failure for complaint handling.
However, considering the compensation offered and the exceptional final complaint response for the second complaint, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports of bed bugs within her flat and in the communal areas of the property
2. complaint handling

Recommendations

It should reiterate its offer of £275 compensation in relation to complaint 1, if this is yet to have been accepted by the resident.
It should reiterate its offer of £1,600 compensation in relation to complaint 2, if this is yet to have been accepted by the resident.