Lewes District Council (202439550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439550

Lewes District Council

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a 4-bedroom mid-terrace house, since 2013. She is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident lives with her partner and their 3 children who have disabilities and medical issues. The property is adapted for their needs.
On 21 October 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said the property was “full of mould” which she had been reporting for “years”. She said that she had 3 disabled children and the family was experiencing health issues due to the mould.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2024. It accepted there were “multiple repair issues” at the property and that it had started repair work in April 2023. It explained that, due to a communication error with its contractor, the repair was closed in May 2024 with no further work taking place. The landlord said it had raised new repairs to locate the source of the damp, carry out a mould wash, clear moss from the roof, and address issues with the windows. It upheld the complaint and said it would monitor the repairs.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 19 November 2024. She said the damp and mould issue had been going on for 10 years and that the works completed by the landlord had not worked. She reiterated that the condition of the property was impacting her children’s health and explained they could not move as it was adapted to meet their disability needs.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 January 2025. It said:
1. In 2023 it carried out work to insulate angled ceilings and install trickle vents. It was sorry these works were not effective.
2. It would carry out an inspection to establish where the damp was coming from. It would also inspect the roof.
3. It was due to assess the windows for replacement in 2027. It would consider bringing this forward.
4. It was not always obvious what was causing damp and mould. Sometimes it was necessary to carry out incremental works to resolve the issue. It had carried out works to attempt to resolve the damp. This had not been successful this did not constitute a service failure.
5. It did however acknowledge
  1. Delays due to its contractor closing the repair and its surveyor leaving.
  2. It had failed to carry out a mould wash in 2024.
  3. Communication failings.
6. It therefore partially upheld the complaint and offered her £100 for her time and trouble.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She felt the landlord should have fully upheld the complaint and taken full responsibility for the issues the family were experiencing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told the Ombudsman that the damp and mould in the property have been ongoing since she moved in in 2013.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint started.
The resident has stated that the condition of the property has had an impact on the physical health of her children. She believes that her daughter’s skin condition was caused by damp and mould and that the issue is also worsening her sons’ existing health issues.
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health and related compensation are more appropriately addressed by way of an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident should seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

The evidence shows that in April and May 2023 the landlord was actively investigating the source of the damp and mould in the property. After this the landlord’s handling of the issue became less effective and delays began to occur.
The landlord installed insulation to the angled ceilings and parts of the external walls in April 2023. It also raised a repair to service all windows in the property as it suspected there was an issue with them that was impacting the damp and mould. This was reasonable.
In May 2023 the landlord obtained a specialist report which recommended that it extract and replace the wall and loft insulation and install a bathroom extractor fan.
The landlord installed the bathroom extractor fan in August 2023. It is not clear why it took it 84 days to do so. This exceeded the policy timeframe of 28 days for routine repairs and was therefore unreasonable.
It is not clear whether the landlord followed the recommendation to replace the wall and loft insulation. We have therefore ordered it to consider this recommendation if it has not already done so.
In October 2023 the resident reported that water was leaking from the top of the window in her son’s ground floor bedroom. She said water was running down the inside of the wall and that there was electrical disability equipment in the room. Within 2 days of the resident’s report, the landlord attended to clear the guttering and inspect the roof. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to emergency repairs including gutter repairs within 24 hours. It failed the adhere to this timeframe, albeit narrowly.
The operative noted heavy moss growth and that there had been water penetration to the render. They suggested this may have run down and caused the water ingress in the bedroom and recommended that the landlord address this and consider installing weep vents in the bedroom. The lack of weep vents was mentioned by several operatives and in several internal landlord communications. We have not however seen evidence that the landlord considered the recommendation to install weep vents. This was unreasonable. We have ordered the landlord to consider this recommendation if it has not already done so.
The resident contacted the landlord in February 2024 and said the landlord had not yet cleared the moss from the roof. She chased the landlord again in March 2024. That the resident had to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response was unreasonable.
The landlord inspected the windows in March 2024. It noted that there was “very bad condensation” and that they needed replacing. It raised works to install trickle vents in the existing windows. These works were not completed until November 2024. This far exceeds its policy timeframes for both routine and planned works. The delay was caused by the landlord failing to respond to its contractor’s quotation in May 2024. It failed to notice that the works had not been completed until October 2024. This demonstrates that it did not effectively monitor the issues at the property and the associated works.
In November 2024 the resident told the landlord she believed the roof was the cause of the damp and mould. She said she had been told by operatives that there were “slits” in the felt and that the roof needed to be replaced. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns until January 2025 when it said it would inspect the roof. That it failed to address her concerns for 2 months was unreasonable.
On several occasions throughout 2024 and early 2025 the landlord raised orders to complete a mould wash. The landlord accepts that it did not carry out a mould wash. Given the family’s vulnerabilities this was inappropriate.
The landlord is aware of the family’s vulnerabilities. The resident’s children have several serious medical conditions. Despite being aware of these vulnerabilities we have seen no evidence that the landlord gave additional priority to the repairs. This was unreasonable.
The landlord has advised that in June 2025 it replaced the windows in the property. It has not stated that it has completed any other works.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed in installing a bathroom extractor fan and window trickle vents.
2. Has not evidenced whether it followed recommendations to replace the wall and loft insulation, address water penetration to the render, and install weep vents.
3. Failed to effectively monitor the works to the property causing avoidable delays.
4. Delayed in responding to the resident’s concerns about the roof.
5. Failed on several occasions throughout 2024 and early 2025 to carry out a mould wash.
6. Did not prioritise the works to the property despite being aware of the family’s vulnerabilities.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
We do not consider that the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for time and trouble is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident and her vulnerable family.
The resident has paid approximately £636 per month in rent during the period of the landlord’s maladministration, which we consider having started in June 2023. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property has been affected by outstanding repairs. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,272 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent over 20 months.
While we acknowledge this is not a precise calculation, we consider it to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The loss of use and enjoyment payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.
We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 October 2024. It said that it would normally respond to a stage 1 complaint within 15 working days but that due to staffing issues it was unlikely to adhere to this timeframe.
It is not clear why the landlord gave the timeframe of 15 working days. At this time the landlord was obliged to adhere to the timeframes in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy both required the landlord to respond within 10 working days. That the landlord provided an incorrect timeframe was inappropriate.
The Code states that landlords may request an extension to its response timeframe if required. However, an extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason. It took the landlord 18 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This was within the additional 10 working days of the timeframe set out in the Code. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response, this was therefore reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 22 November 2024. It said that that it would normally respond to a stage 2 complaint within 25 working days but that due to staffing issues it was likely that it would not meet this timeframe. The Code and the landlord’s own policy required the landlord to respond within 20 working days. That the landlord provided an incorrect timeframe was again inappropriate.
It took the landlord 35 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. While it advised the resident its response would be delayed, we do not consider that it’s explanation that this was due to staff leave over the festive period was satisfactory. The landlord had had the complaint for a month and so had adequate time to start its investigations before the festive period. The Code timeframe also considers bank holidays over this period. The landlord did not apologise for failing to adhere to its policy timeframe within its final complaint response. It therefore failed to provide redress.
The Code states that when a landlord informs a resident about an extension to its response timescales, it must also provide them with the contact details of the Ombudsman. In this case the landlord did not provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s contact details when extending its complaint timescale at stage 1 or stage 2. This was unreasonable.
The landlord partially upheld the stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged the contractor issues found in its stage 1 investigation and that further delays were caused by staff turnover. It also acknowledged that it had not completed a mould wash when it said it would. It failed however to acknowledge other avoidable delays identified by this investigation.
We consider that the landlord should have fully upheld the complaint. While we acknowledge that it did carry out some repairs in 2023, it failed to carry out most of the subsequent works within its target timeframes.
The Code recognises that landlords will not always have completed all outstanding actions by the time a complaint response is issued. We advise that in such cases, the complaint response should contain an action plan with timelines. The landlord should monitor the action plan and keep the resident updated on the progress of any outstanding actions until they are completed.
Internal communications show that the landlord tasked individual staff with monitoring the works. However, there is no evidence that anyone took responsibility for overseeing this to ensure it completed all the works. This was unreasonable and the landlord’s complaint handling process has failed to bring about a resolution to the complaint.
Overall the landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s complaint and failed to adhere to the Code. The landlord’s handling of the complaint failed to bring about a timely resolution to the issues raised by the resident. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for time and trouble due to its poor complaint handling. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,722 comprising:
  1. £1,272 for reduced use and enjoyment of the property due to its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. £300 for distress and inconvenience due to its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. £150 for time and trouble due to its complaint handling.
  4. This amount includes the £100 offered by the landlord in its complaint responses. If the landlord has already paid this, this can be deducted from the amount ordered.
3. If it has not already done so, the landlord must advise the resident whether it intends to carry out the following works recommended by contractors and operatives:
  1. Replace the wall and loft insulation.
  2. Address water penetration to the render.
  3. Install weep vents.
  4. Replace the roof.

If it intends to carry out the works it should provide timeframes for completion. If it does not intend to carry out the works it should provide its reasoning for this decision.

Ensure that all complaint handling staff are aware of the correct timeframes for responding to complaints in accordance with the Code.