Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Moat Homes Limited (202453000)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453000

Moat Homes Limited

16 September 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 a bedbug infestation at her property.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is an independent living retirement scheme. There are multiple flats in the block. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident has given authorisation for her daughter to act as her representative in this complaint. The complaint has been raised by both the resident, and her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’.
  3. The landlord confirmed bedbugs were first reported in the block of flats in January 2023. The resident reported bedbugs at her property in April 2023. The landlord’s pest control contractor treated the resident’s property in April 2023 and confirmed the bedbugs had been removed.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2023. She said was aware the bedbugs had returned within the block of flats. She said the bedbugs were not in her flat but “it was “only a matter of time” before they were. She asked for a “plan” and said the landlord’s previous strategies had not worked.
  5. The landlord issued its first stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2023. It:
    1. Summarised the steps it had taken to treat the bedbug’s infestation in the block since January 2023.
    2. Confirmed the infestation had been resolved “during the summer” but there were 2 cases of bedbugs in other flats within the block reported in October 2023.
    3. Confirmed the resident’s property was “clear of bedbugs”.
    4. Said it would close the communal areas for 6 weeks to help prevent the spread of bedbugs.
    5.  Stated 2 different contractors had attended the affected properties on 19 and 20 October 2025 to support the residents and treat the infestation.
  6. The landlord continued to monitor the resident’s property and treat bedbug infestations in the block during 2024. There was no evidence of reports of bedbugs in her property during this time.
  7. On 5 December 2024,the resident reported a further incident of bedbugs at her property. She complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the bedbug infestation in the block.
  8. On 23 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It maintained its position that it was following the correct procedures and there had been “no failure in addressing the issue.”
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. On 21 March 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. It had not “dismissed” the resident’s suggestion to empty all the properties and “carry out one treatment in one go”. It said all professionals, including the environmental health department at the local authority (environmental health), had advised there was “no evidence to support success in this approach”.
    2. It was aware the resident’s daughter said she was unable to visit the resident due to the risk of spreading the bedbugs. It confirmed she was able to visit the resident.
    3. It could “explore” the possibility of arranging “some dedicated focussed support” for the resident and her family.
    4. It knew the resident did not want to consider moving to another property, but it would help if she reconsidered this option.
    5. It was having a meeting with environmental health and the pest control contractor to consider “any other feasible options to explore”. It invited the resident to this meeting.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. She stated her desired outcome was to move to a different property within the local area or for the landlord to temporarily empty the block of flats and treat the infestation “in one go”.
  11. The resident told us that the infestations have continued since the end of the stage 2 response. She told us that, as of September 2025, her property is clear of bedbugs, but infestations remain within the block of flats. We contacted the landlord for an update on the current situation but did not receive a response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has told us the issues regarding bedbugs at the property began in January 2023 and the landlord has confirmed this. The Ombudsman recognises this was a longstanding issue for the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate issues which are still ‘live’. When events become historical it can be more difficult for the landlord or the Ombudsman to investigate due to the availability and reliability of evidence over time. We are required to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme). Therefore, this investigation is focused only on the bedbug infestation reported from December 2023 and complained about in December 2024. Earlier reports of issues have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation.
  2. We are aware that there have been further instances of bedbug infestations since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2025. This investigation can only consider matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints procedure which concluded in March 2025. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident told us, on 10 September 2025, that she would like to move property. She said the previous property offered by the landlord was unsuitable due to the resident’s age. We are unable to investigate this as this did not form part of the original complaint on 5 December 2024. The landlord has therefore not had the opportunity to address this through its complaints process. The resident is able to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord if she wishes. In the meantime we recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her housing options.
  4. The resident can raise the more recent instances of infestations and any concerns about the landlord’s response to her rehousing request as a new complaint through the landlord’s complaints process if she wants to. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a bedbug infestation at the property

  1. We find no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bedbug infestation at the property. The reasons for our findings are set out below.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not refer to pest infestations. The landlord has pest control guidance which says it will treat bedbugs if the infestation is in a block of flats.
  3. On 7 December 2023, the resident reported bedbugs at her property. On 12 December 2023 a pest control contractor attended and treated the property. The contractor was different to the one the landlord had used earlier in 2023. The landlord told us it moved to a different contractor in October 2023. It said this was because it “offered a more tailored approach, sympathetic to vulnerabilities such as cluttered homes”. This decision showed the landlord was reflecting on the issues within the block and was open to trying a range of methods to solve the infestation. This was positive and appropriate.
  4. Between 17 January 2024 and 3 December 2024, a pest control contractor visited the resident’s property 7 times. On each occasion a “canine screen” was carried out to check for bedbugs. There were no indications of bedbugs at the resident’s property during any of these screens. The evidence showed that the landlord continued to monitor the property throughout 2024 despite the clear results. The landlord was proactive and took the resident’s concerns seriously. This was reasonable.
  5. On 4 December 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She reiterated her concerns regarding bedbugs within the block of flats. She stated her neighbour had bites despite her property being “clear” when screened for bedbugs. The landlord’s internal emails showed it arranged for its contractor to re-attend the neighbour’s property in response to the resident’s communication. The landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and was pro-active in investigating her reports.
  6. Furthermore, on 5 December 2024, the landlord recognised that it was “not able to resolve” the resident’s concerns regarding the bedbug infestation and asked if she would like it to arrange a formal complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) which states that an expression of dissatisfaction should be recognised as a complaint.
  7. On 23 January 2025 the resident reported to the landlord she had seen a live bedbug. The pest control contractor attended on 29 January 2025. It carried out a “steam treatment” at the property. The contractor returned on 4 February 2025 and carried out a chemical treatment at the property. The evidence showed the landlord was taking advice from its contractor and using a range of different treatment options to treat the bedbugs. This was appropriate.
  8. On 28 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she thought the landlord should “shut the scheme down for one day” and treat all the flats together to “stop bugs just moving from one room to another”. The landlord has provided internal emails from January 2025 to the Ombudsman. The emails showed it considered whether the resident’s suggestion to empty the property and treat all of the flats together was a possible solution. It took advice from its contractor which stated this was “not feasible” and not what it would recommend. The contractor raised concerns that residents would need to move out for a significant period of time so the block could be monitored to check the treatment had worked before they returned. This would cause disruption.
  9. The resident told us her desired outcome was for the landlord to treat all of the properties together. We acknowledge the resident’s frustration regarding the recurring bedbug infestations within the block of flats. However, the evidence showed the landlord followed the advice of its contractor. This was reasonable as it was entitled to rely on advice from suitably qualified experts. We have not seen any evidence to show this advice was inappropriate or to confirm that treating the whole block would be more effective. Additionally, we have not seen evidence from environmental health to support this approach.  The landlord’s records confirm environmental health communicated with the landlord regarding the bedbugs but had not recommended treating the whole block at once. It is the Ombudsman’s role to investigate the resident’s individual complaint and look at how the landlord should put rights any errors which affected her. It would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to make orders which could negatively affect other residents without their consent. It is possible that other residents may not wish to vacate their properties.
  10. On 29 January 2025, the landlord visited the resident. The landlord’s notes said it asked the resident if there was anything else it could do to “make life better”. It suggested the option of a temporary move to the resident. The resident declined this offer. The landlord also offered the “longer term option of a priority move”. The resident also declined this.. While the resident was entitled to decline these options, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a move as an option for resolving the situation. By making these offers, the landlord showed it was sympathetic to the resident’s circumstances.
  11. On 10 March 2025, the landlord met with its contractor to review the bedbug infestation. The contractor stated it had used steam and chemical treatments so far. It said a third option was “heat treatments” but stated this would only be suitable in properties where the bedbugs were limited to one room. It confirmed it had visited the “10 active properties”, where there were currently bedbugs, and said 8 were suitable for the heat treatments. The landlord agreed these would begin following the “monthly screen” on 19 March 2025. The meeting notes demonstrated the landlord was working effectively with its contractor in order to eradicate the bedbugs from all of the properties in the block. This was positive.
  12. On 21 March 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s daughter said she was unable to visit the resident due to the risk of spreading the bedbugs. The landlord said it had taken advice from its contractor and environmental health regarding this. It said “professional advice is that it is safe to visit if you are not sitting or lying down on furniture for extended periods of time”. It confirmed the operatives carrying out the treatments did not wear or use personal protective equipment (PPE). However, it offered to provide PPE options if the resident’s daughter felt “this would be useful”. Additionally, the landlord offered to carry out a risk assessment for visiting the resident with the resident’s daughter for “to provide further assurance”. These were reasonable offers and showed the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns and considering her circumstances.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response, on 21 March 2025, the landlord invited the resident to a meeting with itself and its pest control contractor to discuss the ongoing bedbug infestations in the block of flats. This showed the landlord was committed to working with the resident and involving her in the process of resolving the issue. During the meeting, on 9 April 2025, the landlord and pest contractor suggested removing the resident’s headboard from her bed as it was possible this was a source of the infestation. The resident agreed to this, and the landlord’s contractor removed it on 17 April 2025. This was 8 days after it was agreed. This was another example of the landlord completing actions in a timely manner.
  14. Throughout the case the landlord provided regular updates to all residents within the block of properties. It sent advice and guidance regarding the bedbug infestation from environmental health and provided timelines for the treatments taking place. This was positive because all residents were kept informed of the situation. Furthermore, the landlord followed advice from its contractor such as closing communal areas and asking residents not to visit each other if they had bedbugs. This was reasonable.
  15. In April 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it was aware she was visiting her neighbour who had a confirmed case of bedbugs at her property. It reminded that residents had “been asked not to enter each other’s flats until the infestation is fully under control”. It stated that if residents “continue to disregard this important instruction”, it may to begin “charging individuals for the cost of any additional treatments required in their flats or in flats they have visited”. This was fair as the landlord could not be expected to continue to fund the treatment of the bedbug infestations if the guidance was not being followed.
  16. In summary, the resident reported bedbugs within her property 4 times between April 2023 and April 2025. On each occasion the landlord’s contractor attended and treated the infestation promptly. We are aware of the resident’s frustration that the issue has continued to return, and we recognise the presence of bedbugs within her property would be distressing. However, bedbug infestations affecting multiple properties can be complex to resolve and we acknowledge the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an infestation of bedbugs at her property.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord considers the resident’s request to move to a suitable property within the local area and responds to her in writing, setting out the reasons for its decision and the next steps.