Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with 2022 reports about the property next door and a later bedbug infestation, and how it replied to his contacts and complaints. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigating a claimed link between the 2022 issues and the infestation. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the infestation to warrant us investigating, nor enough evidence of Council actions or inactions causing Mr X’s claimed injustices, to justify investigating. We do not investigate council communications or complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. A further complaint about a property extension causes Mr X insufficient injustice to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a private rental property to which his home is connected. He reported waste and possible use of the property as an unauthorised House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) in 2022. In June 2025 he reported to the Council a bedbug infestation into his own property, coming from next door. He complains the Council:
1. failed to act on his reports about waste at the neighbouring property in 2022;
2. failed to take enforcement action against the landlord for operating an illegal House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO);
3. failed to enforce its deadlines set for the neighbouring landlord to treat their property for bedbugs;
4. omitted information or provided contradictory information in its responses to him;
5. has not dealt with fire safety concerns relating to an extension at the property.
2. Mr X says he was tormented by the HMO next door for several years. He considers the waste issues and HMO use caused the bedbug infestation in 2025. Mr X says the infestation has caused his physical health to deteriorate, sleepless nights and stress. He has been prescribed antibiotics and antihistamines by a private GP and may need to see a skin specialist for scarring and marks on his skin. Mr X says the delay in treatment meant the bedbugs spread to several rooms and pest control has cost him £2,000. He says he has lost household items which had to be destroyed due to the infestation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The core complaint Mr X has raised is the Council’s response to his reports of the bedbug infestation coming into his property from next door. But he links this complaint to concerns about the Council not responding to his earlier reports in 2022 about waste at the property and that it may be being used as an unauthorised HMO. We understand Mr X believes that if his 2022 reports had been dealt with, the bedbug infestation in 2025 would not have happened. It is unfortunate the Council did not reply to Mr X’s 2022 reports. But we cannot say waste issues at the property or the alleged use of it as an HMO led to the infestation. An investigation by us would not allow us to make a finding that there was a direct link between those 2022 issues and the later bedbug problem. There is no worthwhile outcome investigation by us would achieve into this aspect of the complaint so we will not do so.
6. The Council says it has not found evidence of the property being used as an HMO. If Mr X has further evidence of the property being used as an HMO which he wants the Council to see, he should provide it to officers. It would be a matter for the Council to decide on what action, if any, officers should take in response.
7. Mr X first reported the bedbug infestation from next door in June 2025. The Council took an informal approach, speaking to the property’s owner to arrange the pest treatment. There were some changes of dates for some of the treatments which meant they took longer than initially intended. The treatment was done about six weeks after Mr X’s first report. He considers the Council delayed and should have pursued the matter formally. It was for the Council to decide what approach to take, based on whether officers considered a formal or informal response was required. If a council takes a formal approach, this would have involved serving of notices to get the work done which the owner could have appealed, requiring consideration by a court. Officers’ informal option meant the treatment was done sooner than it would have been if it had taken formal enforcement action. That the Council did not pursue formal processes to get the infestation treated was not fault and meant the work was done within a shorter timescale then would have been needed for a formal process. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and actions here to warrant us investigating.
8. There have been significant and distressing impacts on Mr X and his property caused by the infestation and he has had to spend money on his own pest treatments. But the infestation which led to those impacts, which he claims as injustices, was not caused by the Council. We could not determine the Council was not responsible for the bedbugs getting into Mr X’s property in June 2025. Even if there had been fault by the Council in dealing with the owner when doing the pest control work next door, we could not have found that caused additional impacts or avoidable expense to Mr X. Once the pests were there, this would have required Mr X as the property’s resident to pay for works to deal with them.
9. Mr X also complains about the Council’s communications and complaint handling. He says officers omitted information or provided contradictory information in responses to him and his MP. We do not investigate councils’ communications and complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate these parts of the complaint.
10. Mr X has raised a further separate planning matter. He says the Council has not dealt with fire safety concerns relating to an extension at the property. He wants the Council to take enforcement action. The Council says its investigation with the fire authority is ongoing. Planning enforcement is a discretionary power so it is for the Council to decide what action, if any, it should take once its investigation is done. We note Mr X is concerned about the fire safety of the extension. But that concern is not a sufficient injustice to justify an investigation. It is not an injustice to him if the Council decides not to take enforcement action against the owner. The owner’s good fortune, should there be no enforcement, is not Mr X’s injustice. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from this issue to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigating a link between his 2022 concerns and the 2025 infestation; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the infestation to warrant us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence that it was Council actions or inactions which led to the impacts on him which caused his claimed injustices; and
• we do not investigate council communications or complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice from next door’s property extension to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman