From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Incommunities Limited (202444944)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444944

Incommunities Limited

15 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom flat situated in a block of flats and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident said her daughter lives with her.
  2. Between January 2020 and February 2023, the resident reported an issue with bed bugs in her property. The landlord inspected the problem and applied several treatments during that period.
  3. In January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about an issue with bed bugs in her block of flats. On 2 February 2023 the landlord applied bed bugs treatment in her property and recommended a follow up treatment 4 weeks later.
  4. The landlord treated the infestation in the resident’s flat in June 2023, October 2023 and in November 2023. It noted that the resident was not at home for the treatment in August 2023 and September 2023, but the resident said it had not informed her of the appointments. On 4 January 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found no evidence of bed bugs and closed the case.
  5. The resident reported that the bed bugs had returned on 14 August 2024. The landlord inspected the problem on 2 September 2024, and applied treatment on 27 September 2024.
  6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2024. Her complaint was about the landlord’s handling of a bed bug infestation in her property. She said the issue started prior to her moving in and the landlord did not make her aware of it before she accepted the property. She said her and her daughter were constantly being bitten and the situation impacted on their mental health.
  7. The landlord applied a follow-up bed bug treatment in the property on 28 October 2024, and 12 November 2024.
  8. On 28 October 2024, the landlord agreed an extension with the resident to respond to her complaint. It then issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 6 November 2024, and said:
    1. On 12 November 2024 it would carry out further treatment in the resident’s property.
    2. It would inspect every property in the block of flats on 15 November 2024 and would apply treatment where it found evidence of bed bugs.
    3. Her housing officer would provide her with information on making a public liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
  9. On 11 November 2024 the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its response to her complaint. She said it did not provide her a permanent resolution to the bed bug infestation. She reiterated the nature of her complaint and the impact the situation was having on her and her daughter. She repeated that she wanted the landlord to move her to a suitable property. She also sought compensation for her financial loss, her damaged belongings and the distress caused to the family.
  10. The landlord inspected the block of flats for bed bugs on 15 November 2024. It visited the resident on 4 December 2024 and applied a bed bug treatment in her property on 12 December 2024. The resident cancelled the treatment booked for 31 December 2024 and rescheduled it for January 2025.
  11. On 9 December 2024 the landlord agreed an extension with the resident to respond to her complaint. It then issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 13 January 2025. It said it did not uphold her complaint because it had handled her reports in keeping with its responsive repairs policy, and said:
    1. It summarised the actions it took between February 2019 and November 2022, to address the bed bugs in the resident’s property.
    2. It wrote to the resident in January 2023, about reports of bed bugs in the building. It inspected her home, and in February 2023, it applied treatment to her soft furnishings, cracks and crevices in her flat. It returned and applied a follow up treatment on 8 June 2023.
    3. It booked repair appointments in August 2023 and September 2023 to inspect and treat her flat, but there was no access. It then emailed the resident asking her to make contact.
    4. It carried out another spray treatment in October 2023 and in November 2023 because the bed bugs were still active in the resident’s flat.
    5. It inspected the property again in January 2024 and found no evidence of bed bugs and it closed the pest control case.
    6. On 6 August 2024 the resident reported the bed bugs had returned. The landlord inspected the problem on 2 September 2024, and applied treatment on 27 September 2024.
    7. It carried out another inspection on 28 October 2024 and treated the property again on 12 November 2024. It returned on 12 December 2024 and organised a treatment for 31 December 2024. The resident rescheduled the appointment for January 2025.
    8. In December 2024 it visited the resident. It discussed the problem with her, explained the treatment plan and how to apply for alternative accommodation. It explained that the resident did not meet the criteria for a direct let.
    9. While it acknowledged that bed bugs affected other properties in the building, it could not provide the resident with details because of data protection. It reassured the resident that if needed it would take legal actions against residents if they did not provide it with access to their properties to inspect or treat the infestation.
    10. It confirmed that it received the resident’s public liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings, and passed it on to its insurer, who would contact her to discuss her claim.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The landlord treated the resident’s property for bed bugs monthly between January 2025 and June 2025.
  2. On 6 February 2025 the resident made a complaint to us about the landlord’s handling of the bed bug infestation in her property. She said that although it applied several treatments, it failed to resolve the matter. She explained that the infestation was reduced but ongoing. She would like the landlord to move her to a suitable property, but it informed her that she did not meet the criteria for a direct move. She asked the landlord to compensate her for her damaged belongings and the distress caused to her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the matters significantly impacted on her family physical and mental health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the family, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.
  2. We understand that the resident reported that she had an issue with bed bugs in her property since she moved in. She reported the issue to the landlord several times since January 2020, and the landlord applied bed bugs treatments in the property. While the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, we may not consider events which the resident did not bring to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. In this case, we saw no evidence that, prior to October 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of bed bugs in the property. However, the evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident in January 2023 about a bed bug infestation in the building. We recognise that those events occurred more than 12 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint. However the evidence shows that between January 2023 and January 2024, the landlord was implementing a treatment plan to eradicate the bed bug infestation in the resident’s property. Therefore, in our opinion, it is reasonable and fair for this investigation to focus on events from January2023 onwards.
  4. The resident has informed this service that as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. However, it is not within our jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord should rehouse a resident. Whilst we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to their complaint, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.
  5. We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred during the period in question, we will not investigate the issue because the evidence neither proves nor disproves either side. In such cases, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property

  1. The landlord explained that its pest control work comes under its responsive repairs policy. Its policy says that when needed, it will inspect a repair before scheduling the works to understand the nature of the issue reported. The landlord says that it will respond to a pest control request as a routine repair within 20 working days. It elaborates that in cases where it must provide batch treatments together with other required repairs, it would consider this a major unplanned repair and complete it within in 40 working days.
  2. Pest infestation can be extremely distressing for residents and of significant difficulty for landlords to resolve. The resident reported having a bed bug infestation in her property, which was distressing and caused her significant inconvenience. She described how bed bugs constantly bite her and her daughter, and they could not relax in the property. She also explained how it prevented them for having friends and family around and the inconvenience of having bed bugs treatments. She said the situation impacted on their physical and mental health.
  3. We understand that the presence of bed bugs does not automatically amount to a service failure by the landlord. We also understand that treating a bed bug infestation can be challenging, takes time and often requires several treatments. This is especially true in a block of flats because how easy it is for the bed bugs to move from one property to another and quickly affect neighbouring properties.
  4. Additionally, in this case, we recognise that the landlord experienced difficulties in gaining access to inspect and treat the problem in some of the properties in the block. It explained that it would take legal actions against residents to gain access to their properties. We understand that taking legal action against residents should always be the last resort. However, in cases such as this, it is understandable because of the impact of the infestation on other residents. Nevertheless, the difficulties in accessing some of the flats in the block would have delayed eradicating the bed bugs in the whole building.
  5. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  6. The landlord said that it wrote to the resident in January 2023 about a bed bug infestation in the building. It applied treatment in her property on 2 February 2023, which was reasonable and in keeping with its responsive repairs policy.
  7. The landlord noted that it would then return 4 weeks later to apply the follow up treatment. However, the evidence shows that it returned 86 working days later and applied the follow up treatment. The landlord did not show that it contacted the resident for an earlier appointment or explained the delay in returning. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have returned within the timescale it promised to apply the second treatment. Follow up treatments are especially important in cases of bed bug infestations because the bugs are stealthy, hardy, fast breeding and can live without feeding, making them one of the hardest pests to control.
  8. Between June 2023 and January 2024, the landlord inspected and treated the infestation every 10 to 20 working days, which was reasonable and in keeping with its responsive repairs policy. It showed that it was taking the issue seriously and keen to resolve the problem.
  9. We understand that in August 2023 and September 2023, the landlord did not apply treatment as planned. It said this was because the resident was not at home for the appointments. The resident denied this and said that she had not known about the visits. As previously mentioned, when there are conflicting accounts between parties and the evidence neither proves nor disproves either side, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord. In this case, without evidence, we cannot determine that the landlord failed to notify the resident of the appointments or that the resident failed to provide access.
  10. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that if a resident is not at home for a repair appointment, it will call them or will leave a calling card asking them to reschedule the appointment. It is unclear whether the landlord phoned the resident on the day of the planned visits when she was not at home. However, in September 2023, it said it emailed the resident asking her to reschedule the appointment. The evidence shows that in August 2023 and September 2023, a few days after its visits, the resident made contact and rescheduled the appointments. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord had informed the resident of its visits, and she promptly rescheduled the bed bug treatment. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, in keeping with its policy.
  11. In January 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found no evidence of bed bugs. We understand that it shared its findings with the resident and closed the pest control case. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord. It showed that it was proactive in treating the infestation and continued to do so until it was satisfied that it had resolved the problem.
  12. In August 2024 the resident informed the landlord that the bed bugs had returned, and the landlord promptly booked an inspection. The landlord inspected the issue 19 working days later. We recognise this was 14 working days outside its published timeframe for inspecting such issues. However, we also understand that because of the nature of her job, it was difficult for the resident to take time off for repair appointments. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord booked the inspection date with the resident when she reported the problem. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this was the first available date for the landlord to inspect the problem and does not amount to a service failure by the landlord.
  13. The evidence shows that it applied treatment in the resident’s flat 19 days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its responsive repairs policy. Following this, the landlord returned monthly and applied follow up treatments. It also showed that after each treatment, it promptly booked the date for next one. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it showed that it was committed to permanently resolving the problem.
  14. The landlord inspected the block of flats in September 2024, November 2024 and December 2024. In November 2024 it explained that it was mapping the building to assess which property was infested with bed bugs. It elaborated that where it found sign of the pests, it applied treatment. It recognised that it was unable to gain access to some of the properties and was starting legal proceedings for access. While those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it is unclear why it did not do this sooner. It should have adopted a whole building approach as soon as it knew there were bed bugs in the building. This is because how easily and quickly bed bugs can move between properties. Its failings to do this may have contributed to the delay in resolving the problem.
  15. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it would speak to the resident about making a public liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings. It then provided the relevant information to the resident, and she submitted her claim on 25 November 2024. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  16. In November 2024 the resident asked the landlord to move her to a suitable property. The evidence shows that 9 days later it met the resident and discussed her housing options with her. It also reiterated its advice in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained why she was not eligible for a direct let, and that she could register to bid on listed properties or consider a mutual exchange to move. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  17. The resident informed us in July 2025, that while the infestation was “limited”, it was ongoing. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the bed bug infestation beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord is implementing its treatment programme and has continued to treat the infestation in the resident’s flat. Therefore, we are not making an order for it to address the infestation as it is actively doing this.
  18. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property. We recognise that overall, the landlord responded to her reports of bed bugs in keeping with its responsive repairs policy. It inspected the issue, treated the infestation and promptly booked follow up treatments. Nevertheless, there were delays in doing the follow up treatment after it sprayed her property in February 2023. While we recognised it inspected and treated other flats in the block, it did not show that it adopted a whole building approach to the infestation prior to November 2024.
  19. However, we saw no evidence that the landlord’s failings significantly impacted the overall outcome for the resident. This is because between February 2023 and May 2023, we did not see evidence that the resident reported an issue with bed bugs in her property or contacted the landlord about the follow up treatment. Additionally, while the landlord could have adopted a whole building approach sooner, it said that it was also treating properties where residents had reported a problem with bed bugs prior to this. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 to reflect the impact of its failings on her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £100 compensation directly to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her.