Connect Housing Association Limited — case 202520160

Decision Case ID 202520160 Decision type Investigation Landlord Connect Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 25 February 2026 Background 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 The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation.

The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that: There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation. 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 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 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 Date What happened 10 June 2025 The resident raised a complaint, stating that: The landlord had not resolved a bed bug infestation which had started the previous summer.

Staff were unsympathetic to her situation and did not understand the impact it was having on her mental health. The contractor was using the wrong pesticides and had a poor attitude when she questioned them regarding the pesticides they had used. The landlord should have moved her into a different property. She would like to be refunded for the costs of hiring a private pest controller. 13 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. 23 June 2025 The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response, summarised below: When it first received the resident’s reports of bed bugs in August 2024, its pest control policy did not cover bed bugs.

It said was her responsibility as tenant to manage any bed bug infestation. When she reported it again in April 2025, its policy had been updated. It accordingly took on responsibility and attended promptly. The contractor had not been able to verify the presence of bed bugs although they attended for several inspections. However, in consideration of the resident’s requests and personal circumstances (being heavily pregnant at the time and worried about her children being bitten), the contractor carried out 4 treatments over an 8-week period, applying pesticides.

It reassured her the pesticides it used were safe and the course of treatment would last up to 3 months. It repeated some of the advice it had already given to her about management of the house after pesticide application. It had listened to some call recordings between its staff and the resident, and it had interviewed its contractor. It was satisfied its staff and the contractor communicated with her in a supportive and empathetic manner. It had provided appropriate information about housing options.

It found no service failings and would not offer compensation. 27 June 2025 The resident asked to escalate her complaint. Her concerns included: She did not feel assured the pesticides were safe to use or were applied in a safe manner as the contractor had sprayed them over her bedsheets. She felt the contractor’s inspection on 17 June 2025 was not thorough and they missed faecal spots of bed bugs. 2 July 2025 The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.

30 July 2025 The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It stated: Its contractor was an expert and they had reassured the landlord they applied the pesticide correctly. The products were not meant to be applied directly to bedding. However there was no evidence of the contractors doing so. It apologised if the contractor had done the wrong thing but could not verify that was the case. It would speak with the contractor further about ongoing training and qualifications for their staff.

Regardless of whether the contractor had seen the faecal spots, they had carried out the pesticide treatment. It found no evidence of its staff being dismissive or disrespectful. It repeated it had provided her with the appropriate information and support regarding a transfer application. 18 August 2025 The resident referred the matter to us. 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. Complaint The handling of reports of a bed bug infestation Finding No maladministration 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration 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 The landlord’s records were well-kept and straightforward. Its communication with the resident was clear and informative.