Two Rivers Housing (202328979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328979

Two Rivers Housing

11 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since April 2023. The property is a 3–bedroom house. At the time, the resident lived at the property with her husband and 4 children, including a baby. She told the landlord and us that 1 of her children is autistic.
On 14 August 2023, the resident reported to the landlord potential bed bugs at the property. The same day the landlord raised work for a contractor to inspect issues. On 21 August 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that she had been waiting 7 days for someone to contact her.
After further contact from the resident, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2023. It said:
1. following the resident’s report, it had instructed a contractor, who had completed treatments on 21 and 30 August 2023.
2. while it was unclear how bed bugs got into the property, as a gesture of good will, it would cover the costs of its contractor removing carpets and a mattress.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 18 September 2023. She said:
1. the landlord was incorrect in stating the first treatment was on 21 August 2023. She said treatment had started on 30 August 2023, with a second treatment on 15 September 2023.
2. her son was sleeping downstairs as he was “scared to go back to his room”.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 October, which it updated on 31 October 2023. It said:
1. it had agreed action to instruct a specialist contractor to complete full survey and treatment of the property. It said this was likely to include a number of visits and it would ask the contractor to lift floorboards in the bedroom.
2. following the resident’s email on 29 October 2023 about her son sleeping on the sofa, it had agreed to pay a £200 contribution towards a pull-out bed.
3. it apologised the resident had experienced unnecessary delays and it was committed to ensuring outstanding work was completed without delay.
At the beginning of November 2023, the landlord instructed a specialist pest control contractor to complete further treatment. This contractor attended between 24 November 2023 and 27 February 2024 to complete a survey and treatments to the property. When the pest control contractor attended at the end of February 2024 it noted that no bed bugs had been found in any stage of life and that the resident had not reported any bites or activity.
The resident told us that she was unhappy:
1. as she believed the treatment the landlord arranged did not work, and that the issue was only resolved as she also completed her own treatment.
2. about the condition in which the second contractor left her property during treatment.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord does not specify who is responsible for pest control. However, on its website the landlord says that removing pests from a property is the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement. It goes on to say that it will make good any areas where pests are entering.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that it may consider making a discretionary compensation payment when it has failed to attend or make contact at prearranged dates. It says that, when assessing the appropriate award, it should take account of the extent of the failing and whether the impact is worsened by factors such as household vulnerabilities or the presence of young children. For minor impact it sets out a scale of award of between £0 and £100.
The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy (the complaints policy) says that it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however it is made.

Scope of the investigation

The resident told us that she is unhappy about the condition in which the landlord’s pest control contractor left her property following its attendance. This matter has not been considered by the landlord through its own complaint procedures, and it would be appropriate and fair to allow it the opportunity to do so. As such, we have not investigated these concerns. However, in reviewing the landlord’s complaint handling, we have considered whether it acted appropriately when responding to contact from the resident about the matter.

Handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs

The resident reported to the landlord her concerns about bed bugs on 14 August 2023. While it states on its website that pest control is a resident’s responsibility, it was reasonable that it arranged for a contractor to inspect these concerns.
The landlord took timely action to raise a request for its contractor to attend. However, there is no evidence it contacted the resident to let her know the next steps. Instead, it was left to the resident to chase the issue. She contacted the landlord 3 times by telephone between 14 and 17 August 2023. Subsequently she complained, on 21 August 2023, about the lack of a contact or attendance by the contractor. The landlord could have avoided this had it taken initial steps to communicate what it was doing to address her report and provide a timescale for attendance.
When the contractor attended on 22 August 2023, it left traps and agreed with the resident that it would return to begin treatment on 28 August 2023. However, it did not reattend on the day agreed, and the contractor later said it had not realised when arranging the appointment that it was a bank holiday.
In her correspondence to the landlord the resident expressed her concern that she had prepared for this appointment and had repeatedly contacted the contractor when it did not arrive. The landlord apologised to the resident for this on 29 August 2023. However, its later stage 1 complaint response of 13 September 2023 did not cover this point at all. It should have done so, particularly as the resident had reiterated her dissatisfaction in the intervening period.
The landlord should reasonably have acknowledged the time and effort the resident spent preparing for this appointment and chasing the contractor. She outlined to the landlord in her email of 28 August 2023 that it had taken time for her family to plan for the visit and arrange to be away from the house during the treatment. She also explained the impact on her child, who she said was autistic and needed to prepare for situations in advance.
In line with its compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a compensation award to the resident to recognise the impact of the contractor’s failed attendance. That it did not do so was a failing. With consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident aimed at fully recognising the impact of its failing.
The resident later confirmed that the contractor had returned to begin treatment on 30 August, with a further treatment completed on 15 September 2023. However, the landlord obtained only limited information from its contractor about its attendances. It did not obtain any full report of the treatment completed. It is apparent from the stage 1 complaint response that it was also unclear about the dates its contractor had attended, with the resident later corrected its understanding about this.
There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to obtain reports from the initial contractor. It is difficult to see how it could maintain any effective oversight without obtaining the reports. It would not have been able to adequately monitor the situation or consider whether further escalating action was necessary to address the bed bug issue. While that is the case, the subsequent inspection by the specialist contractor in November 2023 did not appear to identify a significant infestation. At that time, it detailed that it found 2 small areas of bed bug faeces, but no adult bed bugs.
Nonetheless, it is clear the lack of information the landlord held about previous treatments resulted in some delay in subsequent work. As it did not know the type of treatment used before, it had to take steps in November 2023 to confirm this with the first contractor. The landlord acknowledged in correspondence with us that this had caused an initial delay in the new contractor beginning treatment.
The action the landlord agreed to take in its stage 2 complaint response, to instruct further treatment by a specialist pest control contractor, was reasonable. Further, it was positive and appropriate that it considered other steps it could take to alleviate the issues the resident and her family were experiencing. Its agreement, to cover the cost of removing carpets and a mattress and contribute towards the cost of a pull-out bed, was reasonable.
We acknowledge that the resident believes the bed bug issue may have originated from carpets she had accepted from the previous resident of the property. The landlord has provided reports from the second contractor that detail that it would have expected to find higher numbers of bed bugs if the infestation had been present prior to the resident moving to the property. However, as the landlord stated in its complaint responses, it is not possible to determine with certainty how or when the infestation came about.
We also acknowledge that the resident believes the issues she experienced with bed bugs were only resolved after she applied her own treatment. However, we cannot know whether that was the case. The action the landlord took, by arranging further treatment of the property by a specialist contractor, was reasonable and appropriate. Evidence we have seen shows that this treatment continued until the resident reported no activity, and the contractor had confirmed that no bed bugs had been identified at any stage of life.
The action the landlord set out in its stage 2 complaint response, to arrange further treatment was reasonable. However, overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs as it failed to:
1. appropriately acknowledge the time, effort and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the failed appointment by its contractor in August 2023.
2. take appropriate steps to monitor the initial treatment completed in August and September 2023, which resulted in some delay to subsequent treatment.

Complaint handling

The landlord initially attempted to resolve the resident’s complaint of 21 August 2023 informally. It sought her agreement before taking this approach, and that was reasonable. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 30 August 2023 that she wanted to proceed with a complaint. Following this, its stage 1 complaint response was provided within timescales set out in its complaints policy. That was appropriate.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was outside its target response time, it appropriately contacted the resident in advance to agree an extension. It explained that it had requested this to allow it to visit her and fully understand issues. That was reasonable, as was the timescale within which it provided its eventual stage 2 complaint response.
However, we have identified some complaint handling failings in the landlord’s handling of subsequent concerns raised by the resident. Following attendance by the specialist pest control contractor, the resident told the landlord of her concerns that her belongings had been moved into the bathroom, and that her cat had been shut in her living room. At this time, she provided the landlord with photographs.
The landlord discussed the matter with the resident on 22 December 2023. However, it should have gone further than this to ensure it had fully addressed all her concerns. She had expressed clear dissatisfaction and had requested it reimburse her for a bed sheet she said had been ruined. Given this, in line with its complaints policy, the landlord should reasonably have offered to log the matter as a complaint. Doing so would have allowed it to fully resolve the resident’s concerns. That it did not take this action was a complaint handling failing, which has resulted in the resident’s concerns about the matter remaining unresolved.
We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered that it contact the resident to fully consider, through its complaints procedure, the concerns she has about the condition in which her property was left after pest control treatment in December 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs.
2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £150, made up of:
  1. £75 for the impact of the failed attendance by its contractor in August 2023.
  2. £75 for the impact of failings in its monitoring of the initial treatment completed in August and September 2023.
3. contact the resident to address her concerns, about the condition of her property following pest control attendance, in line with its complaints policy.
4. remind staff of the importance of considering additional concerns raised in line with its complaints policy.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review whether it has adequate processes/guidance for staff about pest control. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring that failings identified in its oversight of pest control treatment are not repeated. It should share the outcome of this review with us within the same timescale.

Recommendations

The landlord told us it has no specific pest control policy, but that it was looking at implementing one. We recommend that it proceed with this action to provide clarity to residents and its staff about responsibilities, and to strengthen its processes and approach to pest control.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident within 4 weeks of this report to ensure it has accurately recorded all vulnerabilities for her household.