Connect Housing Association Limited (202520160)

Background

1. The resident lived with her husband and young children. She reported a bed bug infestation to the her landlord, which she said caused her a lot of distress. During the period covered by this complaint she went through a pregnancy and had a newborn in the house.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the reports of a bed bug infestation

4. The landlord responded to the reports of bed bugs in a timely manner and took appropriate steps to apply bait pads and pesticides. It showed consideration for her personal circumstances and provided her with appropriate information for the treatments.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord responded to the complaint in a timely manner at both stage 1 and 2. Its complaint responses were informative and clear.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord reacted promptly, and within its responsive repairs timeframes, to the resident’s reports of bed bugs. Although the contractors were initially unable to confirm the presence of bed bugs, they adopted flexibility in their approach. In consideration of the resident’s worry and personal circumstances they went ahead with pesticide application despite being unable to visually confirm the presence of bed bugs from June to August 2025.
7. In correspondence with us, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the contractors were initially unable to confirm the presence of bed bugs despite multiple visits. She explained this made her feel as if the landlord did not believe her. She said the contractors should have visited during the evenings when the bed bugs became active. Records showed the contractors had placed monitors and bait pads around the house which would have been in effect during night time. We consider the landlord’s contractors took appropriate steps to assess for bed bug presence.
8. We have not seen evidence to support that the contractors were at fault for using the wrong products or applying the pesticides in an unsafe manner. Each application was clearly evidenced on a datasheet. The landlord also provided detailed and informative explanations to the resident as to the safety and appropriateness of the pesticides.
9. The resident complained the treatments had not been effective. The communication records showed she and her family had at times left the house vacant. The landlord had explained to her that during the course of treatment, people must remain in the house. Otherwise the bed bugs would become dormant rather than be exposed to the pesticide, rendering the treatment ineffective. The landlord gave a clear and informative explanation.
10. We have considered the correspondence records between the landlord and the resident, which consisted of a large volume of emails, texts, instant messages and calls. The records showed the landlord’s staff were empathetic and supportive in their approach and considered the resident’s personal circumstances, particularly her reports of pregnancy and poor mental health.
11. The resident complained that the landlord had not moved her out of the house, either temporarily or permanently, despite multiple requests. The landlord wrote to her to explain that while the infestation was active and the house was being treated, it could not risk moving her to a temporary accommodation because that would lead to bed bugs spreading. It also gave her appropriate information on the housing options available (including a mutual exchange or an internal move) and assessed her suitability for an internal move via a panel interview. We find no issues in how the landlord addressed her request to move.
12. Overall we find the landlord took reasonable steps in handling to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation. There is no maladministration in this regard.

13. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages 1 and 2 within the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code. Its responses set out clearly what had happened, what actions it had taken to address the issue, and showed empathy to her situation. We find no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

14. The landlord’s records were well-kept and straightforward. Its communication with the resident was clear and informative.