Lewes District Council (202341266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341266

Lewes District Council

31 March 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould
2. reports of repairs to the shed roof
3. complaint

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He lives in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat in a block of 4 flats. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident who has type 2 diabetes, digestive problems and mobility difficulties.
The resident reported damp in his property and mentioned that his shed roof leaked in September 2022. The landlord inspected in October 2022, recording damp meter readings of 27.5%, and identified it as ‘rising damp.’ An inspection of the damp proof course and the building’s pointing was recommended.
In January 2023 the landlord completed a home visit. The landlord took photographs and noted that the resident was ‘struggling to keep the mould at bay’ and had been advised that the external walls may need repointing but had received no further updates. The landlord noted that the resident had said the mould was worsening his medical conditions.
On 3 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about black mould in his property, which had already been flagged in October 2022. He also mentioned that the leaking shed roof prevented him from using it. According to surveyors, the external walls required repointing and insulation. He expressed that the situation had caused him significant stress and financial strain, as he had purchased dehumidifiers for every room.
The landlord engaged an external company to survey of the resident’s property and the building in May 2023. Several recommendations were made. The landlord confirmed in an email to the resident on 24 May 2023 that works had been authorised and dates for work would be booked and the complaint was closed.
Following emails from the resident between July and August 2023 regarding updates on the damp and mould works, as well as the repairs to his shed roof, the landlord confirmed on 30 August 2023 that the re-pointing and insulation works (recommended in May 2023) were on hold due to the need for a section 20 consultation. Internal works would proceed, specifically the installation of extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and the landlord would follow up on the shed roof repair.
It was confirmed that the complaint raised by the resident in May 2023 was the same one being handled, as it was reopened after the resident indicated that the works had not been completed.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 April 2024 and confirmed:
1. the resident reported issues in September 2022 and the shed was inspected in October 2022. A follow-up was completed in May 2023, but the repairs were not approved because an essential-only repairs policy had been in place since 2023 due to budget constraints. It apologised that this was not adequately communicated
2. the extractor fans were completed in October 2023 and a mould wash completed in December 2023
3. the damp and mould issues the resident complained about were broader issues affecting the block and required a section 20 consultation
4. there have been delays in updates for repairs that could have been pursued more swiftly and it apologised for the inconvenience this had caused
5. it offered compensation of £650, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the time and trouble caused
  2. £300 for the distress caused
  3. £250 for the running costs of dehumidifiers (50 weeks at £5 per week)
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate his complaint on 26 May 2024. He said that while some internal work had been completed, the external repairs were the issue. He had 8 dehumidifiers running, which had cost £1540, and he questioned why he would have a shed if it was not important and could not store anything in it.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 28 August 2024 and said:
1. it was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint and for the delays with the provision of its service over the last 18 months
2. an external company completed an inspection in May 2023 which identified several repairs
3. due to the costs of the works it needed to complete a section 20 consultation because the leaseholder in the block was required to contribute to the cost of work
4. the major works team requested another survey to confirm if the same works would be required to the rest of the block
5. there was a delay in the damp and mould company responding to complete an additional survey but the landlord had chased it up and had discussed using another contractor to progress the work
6. the shed repair was not considered essential and it had prioritised repairs inside the property and to the structure, rather than to sheds, garages and fencing
7. it offered an additional £360 for the cost of running the dehumidifiers for 18 weeks (£5 per week, with 4 dehumidifiers) the total compensation offered was £1010

The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested that we investigate his complaint. He said that the shed roof had been repaired in 2025 and that the external works to the building were ongoing at the time of our investigation.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s published information available on its website states it must address any repairs that create hazards defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), including issues like damp and mould. It also mentions that the landlord considers residents with medical conditions or situations that may increase their risk of harm. For example, if a resident suffers from a pre-existing health issue aggravated by mould, the landlord may organise urgent mould treatment.

The landlord’s damp and mould procedure (January 2022) states that when a report is received about damp and mould, it will:
1. ask for photos to assess response time for a mould wash
2. send a contractor to do any necessary immediate work, unless it is serious enough to need urgent technical diagnosis
3. if the cause is not clear, arrange for a full damp and mould survey to be conducted
On 26 September 2022 the resident reported damp in the hallway. The landlord inspected the property on 7 November 2022, which was 30 working days later, slightly exceeding the 28-day response time. The landlord did not request photos from the resident to help assess the severity of the issue or to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when determining the response time.
The October 2022 inspection recorded high damp meter readings of 27.5% and noted the presence of ‘rising damp.’ Our Spotlight report on damp and mould emphasises the importance of landlords promptly addressing structural issues, such as rising damp, by implementing effective remedial measures to manage property conditions. The inspection confirmed that further checks of the external pointing and the damp proof course were required, but there is no evidence that the landlord swiftly progressed this matter.
A Housing Officer conducted a home visit in January 2023. Following the visit, the officer sent an internal email reiterating the problems the resident faced, noting that his health condition worsened due to the damp and mould in the property. The landlord did not show any evidence of attempting temporary repairs between October 2022 and January 2023. Additionally, it did not consider the resident’s living conditions by providing dehumidifiers to help manage the damp while he awaited repairs. We understand that the resident purchased his own dehumidifiers to manage the conditions.
On 7 February 2023 a roofing specialist confirmed that the whole side of the wall and the front return need repointing due to their poor condition. They also recommended checking the insulation and removing it if it had failed. It is unclear why this inspection took 4 months to complete after the recommendation was made. Additionally, both this inspection and the one in October were marked as ‘cancelled’ and labelled as ‘inspection only’ which likely contributed to the delays for the resident.
The landlord’s procedure for addressing damp and mould confirms the necessity of conducting a full damp and mould survey when the root cause is unclear. However, despite an inspector recommending further investigations after the October 2022 assessment, the landlord delayed action until the resident complained in May 2023 which is unreasonable.
The May 2023 inspection noted that:
1. general damp was recorded on the accessible wall surfaces of the flank wall within the kitchen and on the timber frame and plasterboard in the entrance hall
2. it recorded ‘random patterns of damp’ which often indicated general penetrating damp
3. externally there was evidence of holes within the pointing
4. missing, inconsistent and damp insulation material affected the overall thermal values, increasing the risk of cold bridging and moisture transfer into the internal walls
5. moisture extraction within the property was very limited
On 24 May 2023 the landlord informed the resident that work had been approved and he should expect to receive appointment details to complete the work ‘shortly.’ The resident did not receive updates, despite the landlord’s assurances. Therefore, in July and August 2023, he contacted the landlord for information. This lack of communication contradicts our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which emphasises the importance of transparent communication with residents. Keeping them updated on findings, proposed actions, and timelines is essential for managing expectations effectively.
The installation of extractor fans was completed on 18 October 2023, 5 months after the May 2023 inspection revealed that the existing ventilation in the property was limited. This was an unreasonable delay.
Our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each household, including any vulnerabilities. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not adequately consider this when managing the damp and mould. The published repair information confirms that the landlord prioritises repairs based on the resident’s circumstances, even noting cases of residents with existing medical conditions who report damp mould.
Despite being aware of the resident’s medical vulnerabilities, the landlord did not complete a mould wash until December 2023, 14 months after the resident expressed his concerns. This considerable delay demonstrates a lack of appropriate consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to inform him that the external works were on hold. The landlord explained that, because there was a leaseholder in the block, it was required to conduct a section 20 consultation. This consultation requires the landlord to engage with leaseholders before commencing major works, allowing them to participate in decisions that affect their property and service charges.
The landlord confirmed the timescales for section 20 consultations. It indicated that 2 types of notices can be issued:
1. if there is an appropriate contractor with a long-term agreement with the landlord, the consultation period typically takes around 30 days
2. if there is no appropriate contractor with a long-term agreement, as was the case in this instance, it can take a maximum of 90 days before the works are scheduled
On 25 January 2024 an internal email confirmed that the landlord did not need to obtain quotes for the work because a qualified contractor with a long-term agreement was ready to complete it. The email also stated that it aimed to begin the work ‘soon.’ However, the landlord did not make progress, as demonstrated by internal emails sent on 20 February 2024 and 22 March 2024, which requested updates on the section 20 consultation. The confusion surrounding the handling of the section 20 consultation caused significant delays, leaving the resident feeling frustrated and uncertain and far exceeding the maximum timeframe of 90 days for scheduling the works.
We reviewed the photographs submitted by the resident in February 2024. These images reveal a considerable presence of black mould growing in at least 2 areas, specifically within the kitchen and the entrance hall. The mould is widespread, with noticeable patches on the walls in the kitchen area. In the entrance hall, the mould growth concentrates around the doorframe and along the baseboards and understandably caused the resident concern.
In its stage 1 response in April 2024 the landlord confirmed it had approved the necessary works and selected a contractor to carry out the external repairs. The landlord acknowledged that broader issues affecting the block and the section 20 consultations caused some delays but confirmed that it could have addressed follow-ups regarding repairs more promptly. While this was reasonable, the landlord did not explain how it intended to prevent further delays moving forward.
The stage 1 complaint response committed to actively monitoring the repairs for the damp and mould to avoid further delays. Despite this commitment, the evidence does not indicate that this was done, and as a result, the resident escalated his complaint in May 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord actively progressed matters between April and the time it issued the stage 2 response in August 2024.
We recognise that the landlord completed some internal work, including the installation of extractor fans and a mould wash, but was significantly delayed in doing so. We understand that the resident felt frustrated because the work did not address the root cause of the problems related to the building’s fabric, leading him to consider the internal repairs as ‘insufficient.’
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that its major works team requested an additional survey to determine if the same repairs were needed for the entire block of flats. The landlord stated that a delay in obtaining a response from the company pushed back the timeline for external repairs.
While we recognise that some delays can arise from factors beyond the landlord’s control, particularly when third parties are involved, the evidence shows that the landlord’s insufficient proactivity in addressing the underlying issues over the past 2 years mainly caused delays. This inaction has worsened issues that timely intervention could have alleviated for the resident.
Furthermore, considerable confusion surrounded the section 20 consultation process, and the landlord’s poor communication exacerbated the frustration and distress experienced by the resident.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with sufficient information about the status of repairs, resulting in uncertainty about the timeline for resolving the issues affecting his living conditions. It was also unreasonable for the resident to have to persistently seek updates from the landlord, which should have been provided proactively.
At stage 2, the landlord apologised and offered the resident £650, comprised of:
1. £650 at stage 1 (£100 for time and trouble, £300 for the distress and £250 for the cost of running dehumidifiers at £5 per week for 50 weeks)
2. £360 for the cost of running the dehumidifiers for a further 18 weeks
While the landlord took some steps to try to put things right, it failed to:
1. complete the essential external repairs needed to resolve the root cause of the damp and mould, which have remained unaddressed for 29 months, despite being made aware of these issues affecting the resident’s property in October 2022
2. acknowledge the additional time, trouble, and distress caused over the 4-month period between the stage 1 response in April 2024 and the stage 2 response in August 2024 or provide redress for the further failures
3. accept full accountability for its failures and appropriately acknowledge the extent of those failures
4. identify the lessons learned and the necessary steps to improve its service
5. learn from previous failures as the evidence shows that similar failures occurred post-complaint regarding the completion and monitoring of the repairs and its communication with the resident
The landlord has failed to address damp and mould issues appropriately or with the urgency required, causing distress to a vulnerable resident for over 2 and a half years, which impacted the resident’s trust in the landlord being able to satisfactorily resolve the problem.
The situation has continued for 7 months after the landlord completed the complaints process. This failure has led to us finding severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
Our remedies guidance suggests compensation of £1000+ in cases where these failures apply. The landlord offered £400 for the time, delay, distress, and inconvenience up until April 2024 when it sent the stage 1 response.
The resident endured a further 11 months of distress and inconvenience and time and delay. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £1000 to reflect this (approximately £20 per week for the additional delays).
The landlord reimbursed the resident running costs for using dehumidifiers until August 2024. The resident stated that since the outside work has not been completed, he is still paying for running the dehumidifiers. The landlord has been ordered to cover these extra costs up to the date of our investigation.

Repairs to the shed

The landlord’s published information regarding its repair processes outlines the prioritisation of repairs based on urgency and impact. The response times are as follows:
1. priority 1 – emergency repairs will be addressed within 24 hours, typically involving situations that pose an immediate risk to health or safety
2. priority 2 – urgent repairs are scheduled to be completed within 7 days
3. priority 3 – routine repairs are expected to be resolved within 28 days, covering general maintenance requests that do not pose immediate risks
4. priority 4 – planned repairs should be completed within 85 days
In September 2022 the resident reported a leaking shed roof. The landlord inspected it in October 2022 but did not document planned repairs.
In May 2023, after receiving no updates, the resident contacted the landlord to complain. On 24 May 2023 the landlord confirmed that the repairs had been authorised but did not specify if this included the shed roof. Since the email did not exclude the shed roof, the resident reasonably assumed it was included.
Between July and August 2023, the resident emailed for updates. The landlord responded, promising follow-ups in August and September 2023.
The landlord failed to communicate a timeline for the shed repair. It was only confirmed to the resident in April 2024 that the service was operating an essential repair-only service due to budget constraints. This was 18 months after the resident’s initial report.
The landlord apologised for the lack of communication. However, this contributed to the resident’s frustration, particularly since the leaking roof rendered the shed unusable.
The resident escalated his complaint, expressing dissatisfaction about having a shed that could not be used. He explained that due to his mobility, he hoped to obtain a mobility scooter and use the shed for storage.
In August 2024 the landlord sent a stage 2 response and referred the resident to its website, explaining repair timelines. The landlord’s published information clarified that while all repairs would be acknowledged, the timeframe for addressing each repair would depend on the assigned priority level. In response to the resident’s complaints, the landlord suggested that records would be kept for each repair request, with potential reviews conducted based on the availability of resources.
The landlord’s repair policy stated that planned repairs (priority 4) should be completed within 85 days. The examples given on the website included full fencing repairs and porch repairs.
The resident confirmed that the landlord only repaired the shed’s roof in 2025, which deviates considerably from the timeline stated on the landlord’s website. While recognising the necessity for budget management and the importance of prioritising repairs effectively, the evidence shows the significant time and persistence the resident invested in contacting the landlord for updates which were not routinely provided.
The evidence indicates that the landlord often responded only when the resident inquired, causing unnecessary frustration. Clear communication from the start could have managed his expectations and minimised the distress and inconvenience.
Due to the identified failures, we have found maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay £300 (£150 per annum). This has been worked out for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord for:
1. failing to communicate clearly regarding timescales for repairs
2. the 2 years that the repair remained outstanding
3. the shed being unusable for that time
4. the distress and inconvenience caused as well as the time spent pursuing the repair

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy, which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint had 3 stages:
1. informal stage – the landlord attempted to resolve the issue informally
2. stage 1 – if an informal resolution failed, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and responded within 10 working days
3. stage 2 – the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and responded within 20 working days
The resident complained on 3 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 1 day late.
The acknowledgement was not in line with the complaints policy, as the landlord did not:
1. clearly define the complaint
2. provide a contact for the complaint
3. give a deadline for a decision
As a result, the resident was unsure of the progress of the complaint.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord’s records show that the complaint was closed, though other than a note from the landlord, no agreement with the resident is recorded. Additionally, it failed to provide a stage 1 response.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages early resolution by mutual agreement. However, there is no evidence that the resident was aware that the landlord was handling the issue informally or that their complaint was closed. An August 2023 email supports this, as the resident inquired about the status of his complaint and asked when he would receive a decision.
Landlords must ensure that their efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not hinder access to the complaints procedure or cause any unreasonable delays, as was evident in this case.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord ‘reopened’ the complaint after the resident reported that the repairs had not been completed but gave little detail on the complaint progress or when he could expect a response to his complaint.
On 25 April 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 response, 8 months after ‘reopening’ the complaint and only after our intervention. This was a significant delay, which prolonged the complaint process, which the landlord failed to acknowledge in its response.
On 26 May 2024 the resident escalated his complaint, which was acknowledged on time. The landlord explained that due to staff shortages, the stage 2 response would likely be delayed. It failed to provide an estimated response time. The resident had to contact us again to receive a stage 2 response, which was unreasonable.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 August 2024, 3 months after the escalation request. The landlord has not provided evidence that holding emails were sent to manage the resident’s expectations regarding when he might receive a response.
The resident spent considerable time and effort to obtain complaint responses. Although the landlord apologised for the delays, it did little to demonstrate how it would prevent similar failures in the future.
Even after the complaints process ended, the landlord continued to make the same mistakes, causing the resident further distress.
The landlord failed to utilise the complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the issues and missed the opportunity to provide a way forward to complete the repairs, which were not fully completed at the time of our investigation, more than 2 years later.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint obstructed the resident’s ability to bring his complaint to us, resulting in unreasonable delays. The landlord’s handling of the complaint spanned 22 months, which is a significant departure from the landlord’s complaint policy timeframes.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint because:
1. the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve his complaint was significantly more than would reasonably be expected due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling
2. it failed to acknowledge its failings and therefore was not able to put things right
3. it failed to appropriately consider or offer any redress for the time and delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
4. it continued to make the same mistakes after the completion of the complaints process, which shows it did not learn lessons
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 (£100 for the time and trouble and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused). The landlord is ordered to review its complaint handling to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the shed roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it:
1. has apologised in writing for the failings identified – the apology is from the Chief Executive or a senior member of staff
2. has paid the resident £1500, made up of:
  1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience and time and delay caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the shed roof repair
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience and time and delay caused to the resident because of the landlord’s complaint handling
  4. has paid the money directly to the resident
  5. it has been paid in addition to the landlord’s previous offer
  6. confirmed that the external repairs have been completed, or provide us and the resident with an estimated completion date
3. has reimbursed the resident for the running costs incurred for the dehumidifiers from the date of the stage 2 response up until the date of our investigation
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must evidence that it has:
1. Conducted a review of the failings in this case, including its procedures for addressing repairs, including damp and mould, ensuring compliance with the landlord’s policies
2. Identified why the failures occurred and confirmed what steps it has taken or intends to take to prevent similar mistakes
3. reviewed the handling of this complaint and identify why the failings occurred and what actions it has taken or plans to take to avoid future delays