From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202232142)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232142

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

11 September 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 we have carefully considered it. 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in his property.
    2. Reports of damage to his personal belongings.
    3. Request for rehousing.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware he has physical co-ordination problems and dyslexia.
  2. In December 2022, the resident informed the landlord that his windows were dripping with water, creating damp. It arranged to inspect the property.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about the issues in early 2023. Neither party has provided a copy of his initial complaint to this Service.
  4. The resident chased for a complaint response in February 2023. He said the landlord could inspect the property but due to his ill health he was in no condition to have works done while living there. He also said his initial complaint referenced a damaged TV.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 March 2023. It said it cancelled the initial repair appointment following a caution issued to the resident by its tenancy team. It apologised that it did not inform him of this. It confirmed it attended the property on 27 February 2023 and arranged follow-on appointments for 9 March and 21 April 2023.
  6. On 19 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. He said he did not think there was a satisfactory outcome concerning the damp and mould or the damaged TV.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It confirmed it washed the mould from the resident’s windows and sealed around the patio door. It said he had not allowed further access to rectify internal issues. It explained it had addressed his request for rehousing and had placed a bungalow on hold for him pending a viewing.
  8. The landlord’s final response dissatisfied the resident, and he referred the matter to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the damp within the property severely hinders his condition and impacts his physical mobility. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. This report considers events from when the resident initially reported damp and mould to the landlord in December 2022 up to its final complaint response of June 2023. Any reference to more recent events is to provide context only. He can contact the landlord directly if he is unhappy with its handling of matters that took place after it issued its stage 2 complaint response.

Damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord has the following timescales defined within its repair policy:
    1. 24 hours for emergency repairs.
    2. 7 calendar days for urgent repairs.
    3. 28 calendar days for routine repairs.
    4. 90 calendar days for planned repairs.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy states residents must allow it access into the home at reasonable hours to inspect its condition, conduct any repairs, or to carry out work that it considers necessary. The resident’s tenancy agreement also reflects this.
  5. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property we find it reasonable for a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  6. The landlord’s records demonstrate the resident initially contacted it by telephone on 12 December 2022. Call notes state he reported that the windows of the property were dripping with water, creating a damp area. Its repair history demonstrates it raised a work order the same day to investigate. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  7. The resident informed this Service that he felt the call handler was not listening to him during their conversation on 12 December 2022. He felt the water ingress required an emergency appointment as it was pouring over his TV, whereas he recalls the handler telling him to buy mould cleaner. While we appreciate his strength of feeling, we do not have a copy of the call recording. Therefore, we cannot assess what happened at the time.
  8. The resident accepted that he swore at a member of the landlord’s staff on 13 December 2022, resulting in a caution from its tenancy team. Within the landlord’s complaint response, it identified that it cancelled a repair appointment because of the caution and failed to notify him. It has not evidenced when it had scheduled the initial appointment for, so we are unable to consider this against the timescales set out in its repair policy. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and ensure the repairs were progressing.
  9. The landlord attended the property on 27 February 2023. It confirmed it washed mould from the windows and cleaned and sealed around the patio door area. Records show it raised follow on works for an inspection of the lintel above the bedroom window and asked its assets team to check for damp alongside the patio door. However, the resident contacted it on 9 April 2023 to request that it completed no works on the inside of his property due to health reasons while waiting for the landlord to rehouse him.
  10. The resident has repeated to the landlord on several occasions that he had an agreement with a member of staff that it would only complete the repairs after it had rehoused him. We have not seen evidence of this alleged agreement.
  11. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident refused to engage with the landlord in terms of progressing the repairs. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delay caused in this instance.
  12. The landlord continued to liaise with the resident post-complaint. It attempted to access the property to complete a full survey and identify any necessary repairs. However, he failed to grant access. We have recommended that it consider further options.

Damaged belongings

  1. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will insure the home and any fixtures and fittings in it that belongs to it. It is not responsible for insuring resident’s contents or personal belongings. Residents must arrange this insurance if they require it.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord summarised the resident’s complaint and referenced a damaged TV and that he wanted £3,600 compensation for loss and damage to personal items. Beyond the mention of the TV, we have seen no evidence that he quantified his loss to the landlord or submitted anything in support of his claim. He also has not provided evidence of his financial loss to this Service. Nonetheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to give him an opportunity to provide more information during its complaint investigation or to refer him to its liability insurers. Its failure to do so was a shortcoming.
  3. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated the resident wanted compensation for carpet and flooring damage due to damp and mould. It said he had not reported these issues to its staff. There is no record of this within the repair notes from contractors on site. It also highlighted that it had tried to rectify the internal issues, but he did not allow reasonable access. It is not clear to this Service what party owns the carpet and flooring referenced. We also appreciate the resident had not mitigated the damage by not allowing further investigations and repairs to proceed.
  4. Overall, we find a failing in the landlord’s service provision as it did not direct the resident to make a claim on his own contents insurance (if held) or its liability insurance. Furthermore, it did not fully respond to his concern about damage to his TV within its complaint response. Therefore, we have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance. This suggests compensation in the range of £50 to £100 for minor failures identified.

Rehousing

  1. We recognise there is a shortage of social housing across England. Landlords are, therefore, required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need.
  2. The resident’s request to be rehoused is noted. A permanent move to another home is usually not an outcome which we will ordinarily provide. This is because there may be other applicants who have a higher priority need, and any such order would be unfair to those applicants. We also have no control of the housing stock of landlords. As such, we have considered the landlord’s handling of his request to be rehoused, and if its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s internal moves policy sets out what it requires to consider a management move request. This includes:
    1. The resident registering onto Gateway to Homechoice or equivalent local authority housing register.
    2. Full supporting evidence from any support agency or advocate.
    3. A discussion with an income manager and income and expenditure co-ordinator.
  4. The policy states the landlord will initially make 1 offer of a suitable direct let. If a resident refuses the property, then it may look at revoking the banding award and discuss the case with the relevant local authority.
  5. In October 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response for a separate complaint (that we have not considered in this determination). Within this, it agreed to assist the resident with a move to a 1-bedroom property in another area.
  6. In November 2022, the landlord told the resident that it can assist him moving to another property by applying for him to be placed on its management move list. It asked him to provide a copy of any medical letters from his GP, as well as any letters regarding the support he receives.
  7. The landlord issued an additional stage 2 response to his previous complaint in February 2023. This stated the resident was on its managed move list. However, it did not explain the things he needed to do to progress his application in line with its internal moves policy. We find the landlord could have been clearer here and done more to manage his expectations.
  8. Within an internal email in March 2023, the landlord said that the resident refused to engage with support services to complete an application to the housing register, review his benefit income, and clear rent arrears. Following this it acted suitably by offering help from its tenancy sustainment team in completing an application to the register and gave him the option of approaching the local authority directly. Furthermore, it explained it would allow his rent arrears to be carried over to the next property. This demonstrates its commitment to supporting the resident by not making his arrears a barrier to moving. We find the landlord acted pragmatically to move matters forward.
  9. Records show the resident attended the local authority offices to apply to the housing register on 13 April 2023. The next day, the landlord notified him that he was added to its internal move list for a 1-bedroom bungalow in a specific area. It also evidenced that it made a referral for an assessment with an occupational therapist to consider his needs. This was appropriate.
  10. In April 2023, the landlord identified a 1-bedroom bungalow in the area agreed with the resident. He declined the property as he deemed it to be unsuitable. He identified a different property that he was interested in, however the landlord had already matched it to another applicant. While we appreciate his disappointment, we find it acted reasonably by explaining the property he wanted was outside of the area that he had opted to live in. Following this, it widened the search area for suitable properties and gave him an opportunity to disclose any other areas he would consider moving to. It also clarified that he had been approved for a direct let, so it would offer properties to him before advertising them. The landlord’s communication here was clear and appropriate.
  11. Following further dissatisfaction with the resident, the landlord arranged a meeting with him. This took place on 13 June 2023. Following the meeting, it emailed him with a summary and the next steps. We find its correspondence to be professional, clear, and concise. It said it was waiting for the keys to be returned to a 1-bedroom bungalow, and it would hold the property back to offer to him. It managed his expectations by explaining it was uncertain of the condition of the property or how long it would take the voids team to complete any necessary works. Within its stage 2 complaint response dated 27 June 2023 it also clarified that it had placed a bungalow on hold, and it would offer him the first viewing once it was available.
  12. Post-complaint, the landlord was unable to progress with the offer of the bungalow as it had 2 bedrooms, whereas the resident had a need for a 1-bedroom property. Over the following period, it made other direct offers of properties which the resident did not accept. It notified him in January 2024 that it had removed him from its management move list after it did not receive a response to its final offer of a property. This falls outside of the scope of this case, as per paragraph 11. However, we have included this information for context.
  13. Under our complaint handling code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. While it outlined its decision within its final complaint response, we find it ought to have done more to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns. The lack of specific information within the stage 2 response was disappointing. However, it had already set out its position within a meeting, followed by an email, on 13 June 2023. As such, he was aware of its stance and the next steps, so there was no detriment caused. It would have been helpful for the landlord to reference the email dated 13 June 2023 within its complaint response and provide a copy of it.
  14. Overall, we find the landlord broadly handled matters in line with its internal moves policy and kept the resident updated regarding his request for rehousing.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in his property.
    2. Request for rehousing.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his report of damaged belongings.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord considers seeking legal advice about enforcing access to the property to assess and complete the repairs.
  2. We recommend the landlord considers whether it can complete the repairs with the resident in-situ or if he requires temporary accommodation view of his vulnerabilities. A risk assessment would be appropriate in this respect. We recognise the landlord cannot decide the scope of the works or next steps until it surveys the property.