Lewes District Council (202338493)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338493

Lewes District Council

30 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 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a disconnected boiler pipe and associated staff conduct.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord between August 2021 and January 2025. The property is a 1 bedroom flat, on the 2nd floor of a low-rise block. The resident has mental and physical health vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of.
  2. The resident reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord during its visit to the property on 28 February 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response to a separate complaint made by the resident on 6 March 2023, the landlord said it notified its property service team of the mould in the property.
  3. On 26 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that the property was excessively cold. He believed that there was a lack of insulation in the loft space. He was using electric heaters to heat the property and was concerned about the additional energy costs.
  4. On 29 September 2023 the landlord sent a contractor to repair a blocked sink. The contractor noted that the blockage was causing water to back fill into the condensate pipe connected to the boiler. They asked the landlord to schedule a follow up visit to repair the kitchen sink so that it could return and repair the condensate pipe.
  5. On 16 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that mould was growing in the flat and he was concerned that nothing was being done to resolve it. Amongst other issues, he reiterated these concerns in his request to escalate his complaint on 1 February 2024. He said the mould in the property made it hard to breathe.
  6. On the 21 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor attended to repair the boiler pipe. On the same day the resident told the landlord the boiler pipe had been missing for around 6 months. He advised that there were 3 visits from a contractor, but the repair was unresolved. He said a call handler ended a call to him inappropriately and the operative had behaved inappropriately. He also reported these issues to the gas contractor directly on 23 February 2024.
  7. On 27 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident saying its surveyor would inspect the property on 4 March 2024. When the surveyor attended on 4 March 2024, the resident cancelled the appointment because they had not called before showing up. The surveyor later called the resident and discussed the damp and mould issues. They agreed to schedule a mould wash for the property. The landlord completed a mould wash on 7 March 2024.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024. It said the resident reported the disconnected boiler pipe on 21 February 2024 and complained about the officer’s conduct the same day. The landlord:
    1. Apologised for any conduct which may have caused the resident concern and raised this with the contractor, who would respond separately.
    2. Did not uphold his complaint about the repairs to the condensate pipe. Following the report on 21 February 2024, it contacted its gas compliance team. It said the condensate pipe should not have been disconnected and had no record that its contractor did so. Its contractor attended the same day as an emergency appointment because it was concerned about the risks to him and other residents. It understood that this was an unannounced visit and apologised for the distress caused. It updated its records to reflect the resident’s requests for calls before visits as a reasonable adjustment. It asked him to report any concerns with the boiler in the future through its appropriate channels.
    3. Upheld his complaint about its handling of damp and mould. It accepted that the resident first reported damp and mould during a visit on 28 February 2023. Following a call to the resident on 21 February 2024, it arranged for a surveyor to visit. It raised a repair and conducted a mould wash on 7 March 2024. It apologised for not resolving the issue in 2023.
    4. Offered the resident £400 compensation. This comprised of:
      1. £100 for time and trouble.
      2. £300 for the distress caused.
  9. The resident continued to make complaints in April and May 2024. Due to the number of complaints and emails sent to the landlord, it determined that his communication was unreasonable. It restricted his contact to email only and to a designated inbox on 15 May 2024.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2024. He said the landlord had repaired the boiler pipework. He wanted it to resolve the damp and mould in the property.
  11. The landlord’s records show that it scheduled additional works to treat damp and mould in October 2024. It planned to mould wash, lag pipes and install thermal boarding and ventilation. It also planned to paint the bedroom and lounge in November 2024. The resident responded to the landlord’s emails on 20 October 2024 and said he was unable to attend the appointments. He said he was unwell and not staying at the property. The landlord noted that it would place the repairs on hold until it received an update from the resident.
  12. The resident left the property in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident reported many other issues to the landlord by telephone and email. Between January and May 2024, he sent more than 200 emails to the landlord. Many of these emails were complaints and service requests. It can be difficult for landlords to manage cases where there has been excessive communication from a resident. In this case, we have considered the volume of communication when making our decision about the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend urgent repairs caused by containable leaks within 7 days. For routine repairs, it will attend within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will assess new reports of damp and mould on receipt. It will review the repair history and ask the resident for photos before deciding on the appropriate action. It may arrange a mould wash in the first instance. If there have been previous reports within 12 months or it decides to take more urgent action, it will arrange a property survey.

Disconnected boiler pipe and associated staff conduct

  1. It is unclear from the records available to the Ombudsman when the condensate pipe was disconnected from the boiler. The landlord’s repair history shows that the resident reported issues with the sink blocking in September 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended within the prescribed timescales and noted that the condensate pipe needed repairs. There was no record of a follow up repair available to the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord’s notes from 18 January 2024 show that its contractor attended to the blocked sink again and found the condensate pipe disconnected. It was unclear who disconnected the pipe. It is concerning that there were 2 records that specifically refer to a damaged condensate pipe that do not have clear outcomes in the landlord’s records.
  3. The resident raised his concerns about the damaged condensate pipe on 21 February 2024. He said that the pipe had been missing since his first complaint and following 3 visits from the contractor. This reflects the timeline available to the Ombudsman. The landlord appropriately treated the issues as an urgent repair and asked its contractor to attend the same day. Although it did not call the resident before attending, it was reasonable to request an urgent visit to assess the pipework that day. It was fair to consider any risks to him or his neighbours.
  4. Later that day the resident wrote 5 emails about a phone call he had with the landlord. He was upset because a contractor (who he had previously reported for inappropriate behaviour) came to the property. It is possible that the landlord had not shared his concerns about the operative with the contractor and this was an oversight.
  5. The landlord did not use its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024 to fully address the repairs to the condensate pipe. It said the resident first reported issues on 21 February 2024. This did not correlate with the resident’s earlier reports in 2023. It is possible that the condensate was not fully functioning for around 5 months before it attended on 21 February 2024. It did not address the notes made by its contractors or requests for follow up repairs. It did not show how it investigated the historic repairs or if the condensate pipe was damaged prior to his report on 21 February 2024.
  6. Although there were some inaccuracies in its assessment of the repair history, the landlord reasonably explained its decision making and scheduled the emergency repair. It was appropriate to arrange for its contractor to attend the same day. It accepted that it should have called prior to attending and appropriately apologised for this failure. Its decision to update its records to reflect the reasonable adjustment request was fair. It addressed the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and it was reasonable to raise these with the contractor for further investigation.
  7. The Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of a disconnected boiler pipe and associated staff conduct. Despite some uncertainty in the notes following visits, the landlord’s records show that it scheduled repairs after each report by the resident. Its contractor attended each repair in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It treated his reports seriously and when he raised specific concerns about the condensate pipe, it attended the repair as an emergency. It was reasonable to share his concerns about officer conduct directly with the contractor. However, it did not consider the repair history, or if the condensate pipe had been disconnected previously. The landlord should pay the resident £50 for his time and trouble, which reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. There was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and fully put them right.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. During the complaint timeline, the resident highlighted concerns with damp and mould in his bedroom. He said he was using additional electric heaters to warm the property. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s reports of damp and mould in its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023. It said that it had passed his report to the correct service for it to follow up. However, it did not use its complaint handling effectively. It did not schedule an inspection, or request photos from the resident showing the condition of the property. It did not follow its damp and mould procedures in place at the time.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen any response from the landlord to the resident’s concerns raised on 26 May 2023. He said the property was excessively cold and he was concerned about the additional energy costs from running space heaters. The landlord’s lack of action following this report was a failing and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  3. In his complaint to the landlord on 21 February 2024, the resident said that there was mould in the property. He says he outlined this in a stage 1 complaint a year before as well as the lack of action. He added that he struggled to breathe and there was black mould. He was aware it was scheduling a surveyor but was unhappy that he had to wait. The resident reported that he was asthmatic, which would place him at higher risk of harm if damp and mould are present in the property.
  4. The landlord’s response improved and it appropriately scheduled an inspection for 4 March 2024. Its records show that it was unable to complete the visit on 4 March 2024 because it did not call ahead of the visit and the resident refused access. Although there was a shortcoming in how it handled this visit, it promptly scheduled a further appointment and returned on 7 March 2024 to wash down mould affected surfaces.
  5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its earlier failures in its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024. It accepted that it had not scheduled any repairs or inspections for the damp and mould for 12 months. It reasonably referred to its actions taken following the resident’s report in February 2024. Its offer of £400 compensation for its failings was reasonable and reflects the highest end of its compensation offers for distress and time and trouble. This was also within a range the Ombudsman would recommend where there was a service failure that had an adverse impact.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of reports of damp and mould. It awarded proportionate compensation for the delays in its handling of the resident’s initial damp and mould reports from February 2023 and the related cold temperature concerns from May 2023.
  7. The landlord continued to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould following its stage 2 response. Around this period, the landlord determined that the resident’s communication became excessive. Despite the difficulties in managing his communication, the landlord scheduled additional repairs and followed through with the recommendations made by its surveyor. It scheduled a further inspection of the property and identified repairs necessary to treat the damp and mould in 2024.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a disconnected boiler pipe and associated staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 for his time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a disconnected boiler pipe and associated staff conduct.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation offered in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this was paid.