Eastbourne Borough Council (202430352)

Decision
Case ID	202430352
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Eastbourne Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	17 October 2025

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom maisonette, which he rents to a private tenant through a letting agency. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident complained that a fly infestation in his property was caused by the condition of a neighbouring property, owned by the landlord. He requested compensation for the loss of rental income resulting from relocating his tenant and for expenses related to cleaning and pest control. The resident asked us to investigate as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation at his property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation at his property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, the Ombudsman found that:
   1. The landlord appropriately responded to why it believed it was not responsible for the infestation at the resident’s property. It provided clear reasoning and demonstrated that it had reviewed all available evidence in rejecting his request. It addressed the resident’s concerns about the neighbour as much as it could in accordance with its data protection obligations. The evidence reflects that it appropriately resolved issues at the neighbour’s property in a reasonable timescale.
   2. The landlord delayed providing its stage 1 complaint response and did not suitably remedy its poor service.

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its delayed stage 1 complaint response.	No later than 17 November 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 8 and 21 August 2023	The resident’s tenant reported a fly infestation in the property on 8 August. The letting agency arranged for a pest control contractor to attend the following day. They believed the source of the flies was from the neighbour’s property below. The letting agent contacted the landlord on 10 August. The landlord cleared and cleaned the neighbour’s property on 21 August. During this time, the resident entered the neighbour’s property and took photos and video recordings, showing the property in poor condition. He told his tenant to leave the property temporarily and suspended rent payments from 8 August.
23 August 2023	The resident told the landlord it was liable for the flies in his property, due to a lack of care at the neighbour’s property. He asked for the landlord to compensate the resident for 2 pest control invoices and for the lost rental income. He also asked for its plans for the neighbour’s property in the future.
11 December 2023	The landlord emailed the resident apologising for its delayed response. It confirmed it would not compensate the resident. It said the resident decided to suspend rent payments. It also said its pest control expert believed the flies in the resident’s property did not originate from the neighbour’s property. It said it had completed all works at the neighbour’s property with no impact on the resident’s tenant.
26 April 2024	The resident complained that the neighbour’s property was the origin of the fly infestation, which made his property uninhabitable. He said that the property was a fire risk due to its condition. He said he relocated his tenant for their welfare. He asked for £1,103.36 compensation for pest control expenses and for loss of rental income.
7 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, again apologising for the delay. It said it had not advised the resident to move his tenant, suspend rent payments or that it would compensate him. It suggested he consider claiming on or taking out landlord insurance. It said there was insufficient evidence that the infestation originated in the neighbour’s property and rejected his request for compensation.
23 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint, He said video evidence and his pest contractor reports showed the neighbour’s property was linked to the origin of the infestation.  He said the landlord had some responsibility and asked again to be compensated.
3 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the evidence the resident provided did not demonstrate the fly infestation originated at the neighbour’s property. It confirmed it had taken appropriate action at the neighbour’s property but could not divulge what this was due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It did not uphold his complaint and refused his request for compensation.
The complaint to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord failed to uphold its responsibility and put his tenant at risk. He believed it was not prioritising the welfare of the neighbour and wanted it to recognise this and adhere to regular inspections of its properties. He wanted compensation of £1,103.36 for pest control expenses and loss of rental income. He also wanted further compensation of £700 to £1,500 for the landlord’s delayed complaint response.

 

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.

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has raised further concerns about the condition of the neighbour’s property and the impact this could have on his property and tenant. However, this was after the landlord’s final complaint response of 3 September 2024 and as such he has the opportunity to raise this as a further complaint with the landlord. Should he be dissatisfied with its final response, he can raise this with the Ombudsman.
8. The resident has stated that the landlord is liable for the fly infestation in his property. The Ombudsman does not determine legal liability for specific financial losses or physical damages. This is the jurisdiction of the courts. This report will, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a fly infestation at his property.
Finding	No maladministration

9. In its complaint response, the landlord rejected the resident’s request for compensation for the pest control expenses and loss of rental income.
10. The landlord said it had no evidence that it told the resident move his tenant from the property or to suspend rent payments. It also said these decisions were made solely by the landlord in the agreement between the resident acting as a landlord and his tenant. There is no evidence that contradicts this.
11. The landlord confirmed that it viewed all the evidence provided by the resident. This included the video of the neighbour’s property and the pest contractor’s reports he obtained. This addressed his belief that it had not considered the evidence he provided. It explained why it considered that this evidence was insufficient. This was because:
    1. There was no evidence the resident’s pest contractor investigated the neighbour’s property. As such, the contractor could not state the issue originated from there, only that it did not originate from the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord arranged its own pest contractor to attend the neighbour’s property. They did not conclude the infestation originated from the neighbour’s property. They also noted that while there were flies in both properties at various times, they were of a different type. The landlord concluded from this that the neighbour’s property was not affecting the resident’s.
    3. The resident’s video of the neighbour’s property showed no flies present in at the time of the recording, which was when the resident’s tenant had an infestation.
12. The evidence provided supports the landlord’s response. Its ability to relay information in both the reports and videos was supportive of it considering all evidence supplied by the resident.
13. In accordance with the leaseholder agreement, the landlord explained that it was responsible only for the structure of the building. It appropriately explained as such it was not responsible for any issues within the resident’s property and directed the resident to claim on or take out landlord insurance regarding the infestation. This was appropriate as the lease agreement only suggests the landlord is required to insure the structure of the building.
14. The resident complained that the neighbour’s property posed health and fire risks to his property due to its condition. The landlord explained that it could not share information about the neighbour due to GDPR, which was appropriate under its compliance with the regulations. It did confirm, however, that it had taken appropriate action with the neighbour following the concerns raised. The evidence reflects that the landlord took action to resolve any issues at the neighbour’s property in a reasonable timescale.
15. In summary, the landlord was able to demonstrate clear reasoning why it would not pay compensation for pest control expenses and loss of rental income to the resident. It explained why it did not consider it was responsible for the fly infestation in the resident’s property. Although it could not specify (for data protection reasons) what action it took at the neighbour’s property, the evidence shows it acted appropriately to resolve any issues.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
17. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
18. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 71 working days (26 April to 7 August 2024), exceeding the 10-working day timescale by 61 working days. It acknowledged and provided explanation for its delays in responding on 31 May and 13 June. However, it did not agree on a new timescale, as called for in its policy and the Code.
19. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response. However, it did not consider compensation and should have done so. Its compensation policy confirms it can offer compensation for failing to resolve a complaint for many months, such as happened here.
20. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within the timescale in its complaints policy and the Code.