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.

Lewes District Council (202413170)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413170

Lewes District Council

5 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 reports of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. A rat infestation in his kitchen.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2018. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord was aware the resident had several medical conditions at the time he applied for housing.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2022. He said he had damp and mould in his kitchen. He had been waiting since September 2020 for it to complete repairs.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about another matter on 10 January 2023. The landlord visited him on 26 January 2023 to discuss his complaint. He added that he was concerned about damp and mould. The landlord took photos and agreed to consider the damp and mould as part of his existing complaint.
  4. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 13 March 2023. It found the trickle vents in the windows were closed. The resident also said he was not using the air management system or kitchen extractor fan because he could not afford to. It completed a mould wash on 30 March 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 March 2023. It apologised for its delay in responding. It said its contractor was responsible for the delays during the Covid-19 pandemic up until he reported it again in September 2022. The contractor awarded him £500 compensation for those delays. The landlord awarded him a further £1,330 compensation to reflect 50% of the rent he had been charged since he reported the issue again in September 2022. It agreed to inspect his air management system and cavity wall. It would also repair his bathroom door.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 16 October 2023. He said his home was unfit for him to live in. The damp and mould had returned. His kitchen was covered in black mould and had rats living behind the walls. He had bought a dehumidifier for £160 but it had been ineffective.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024. It apologised for its delay in responding. It said it was satisfied it had provided adequate pest control. It had also repaired the cavity wall since its stage 1 response. It assured the resident it would install a new ventilation system, 2 extractor fans, and overhaul his trickle vents by 10 June 2024. It said no work could be carried out in November 2023 because he was away for 4 weeks and an inspection had to be cancelled in February 2024 when he was in hospital. Although the landlord accepted there had been avoidable delays it did not consider further compensation to be appropriate given it had arranged to put things right. The landlord completed the outstanding repairs by 27 June 2024.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 1 July 2024. He said the landlord had not treated the mould in his flat. There had also been multiple rat infestations. He wanted the landlord to either complete repairs or move him.
  9. The landlord arranged a move for the resident to a new flat in October 2024.

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the landlord’s actions negatively affected his health. He said the damp and mould caused him to have a fall in his bathroom. He also said he was hospitalised resulting from the rat infestation. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damages, including whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or by way of a personal injury insurance claim. However, any distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s level of service is considered below.
  2. Although the resident has said he has experienced problems with damp and mould since 2020, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from September 2022. This is the period considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’. It ensures the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  3. The resident did not report the rat infestation until after the landlord had already provided its stage 1 response. However, as the landlord considered the rat infestation as part of its stage 2 investigation we have considered the actions it took in response to those reports.

Landlord’s handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says when a resident reports damp and mould issues within their property, it will arrange for a trained operative or a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property depending on the severity of the damp and mould. In addition, the policy states following the inspection, a job will be raised for the necessary works. Its repairs policy sets out that it will respond to urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord to chase up damp and mould repairs in September 2022 it was not appropriate it did not respond to him. He chased it up further on 10 November 2022. Given the landlord noted during that call that he was vulnerable it was not reasonable it did not take any action to follow up. That resulted in him raising concerns during a stage 1 complaint.
  3. The landlord’s approach at stage 1 was reasonable. It was accountable for its failings since September 2022 when it awarded the resident £1,330 compensation. It also took some action regarding the damp and mould. It completed an inspection in line with its damp and mould policy. During that appointment it provided advice on how the resident could improve the ventilation in his home. It completed a mould wash within 7 days of that inspection.
  4. The evidence provided shows that the landlord’s contractor inspected the external cavity wall and completed a repair to top up the insulation though the exact date is not known. The landlord has not provided evidence it repaired his bathroom door or inspected the ventilation system. That did not show it was effectively monitoring the assurances it made in its stage 1 response. It is not clear if it completed those repairs within the 28-day timeframe allowed by its repairs policy. However, the resident did not chase up those repairs, so it is not clear whether it completed those assurances or not. It was not until October 2023 that he contacted the landlord about damp and mould again.
  5. Part of the landlord’s approach at stage 2 was reasonable. It completed another damp and mould inspection that highlighted several repairs. It did not identify any issues with his bathroom door so on the balance of probabilities it is likely that it did complete the repair mentioned in its stage 1 response. For the same reason, as the survey recommended a new ventilation system it is likely the landlord did not complete the inspection of the existing system it assured the resident it would. It was appropriate the landlord assured the resident it would complete the recommended repairs by 10 June 2024.
  6. As it was the landlord completed those repairs slightly outside that deadline, by 27 June 2024. The evidence provided does not explain the reason for that delay. It meant it did not complete all the repairs within 28 days of its stage 2 response. When it did not award further compensation the landlord failed to acknowledge the additional distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  7. It was appropriate the landlord arranged for a post repair inspection with a surveyor in July 2024. It identified the new ventilation unit had improved matters and that the resident agreed. The surveyor recommended that the landlord move the resident to retirement housing because of his health conditions. The landlord showed it had considered that advice when it moved the resident later that year.
  8. While the landlord completed the repairs to resolve the damp and mould issues at stage 2 it did not go far enough in recognising the distress it caused the resident. It did not consider his vulnerabilities when it delayed in completing a damp and mould inspection from October 2023 to March 2024. It also failed to complete the recommended repairs within the 28-day timeframe allowed by its repairs policy. It had raised the repairs to be completed within 28 days of 6 May 2024 but did not complete them until 27 June 2024. Although some parts of the delay were outside the landlord’s control with the rat infestation delaying kitchen repairs, the resident going on holiday, and later being hospitalised those factors do not fully account for the length of delays. They are not enough to prevent a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not show it had considered the distress its delays caused him when it decided compensation at stage 2 was not appropriate.
  9. The landlord was clear the £1,330 it awarded at stage 1 related to a set period for the loss of enjoyment of his home. This award was reasonable. However, it did not take account of the failings at stage 2 and the additional distress and inconvenience caused. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not consider if additional compensation was required in line with its guidance. The landlord’s policy states it will pay between £100 and £300 for distress. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing a damp and mould inspection and the recommended repairs. That figure is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Landlord’s handling of rat infestation

  1. The landlord does not have a pest control policy. Its website says it offers free home treatments for rat infestations. Those treatments will be carried out by qualified pest control technicians. In addition to that the Ombudsman’s pest guidance document which provides best practice says that landlord’s should undertake timely inspections of impacted areas. Landlord’s should complete timely repairs linked to their repairs policy.
  2. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a rat infestation in May 2023 was reasonable. It raised a routine repair for pest control to attend his home within 28 days. Internal e-mails in the evidence provided and comments the resident made to the landlord suggest a pest control contractor attended sometime in May 2023 and laid down poison. The landlord completed 8 more pest control visits between June and September 2024. That showed it was taking the matter seriously. Internal e-mails from September 2024 show landlord was satisfied that the poison had been successful. While the landlord should have retained records of what dates its pest control attended the evidence shows it took action to resolve the issue.
  3. When the resident reported he had a hole in the kitchen wall that rats had been using to enter his home in October 2023 the landlord acted promptly to temporarily fill the hole. This was reasonable because the resident was due to go on holiday. It also inspected his washing machine in December 2023 as he had told it the rats had chewed off the plug. It identified the washing machine plug had not been chewed off. The issue had been due to a fuse spur, which it tested. That action was appropriate and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  4. The landlord did follow up with the resident to arrange a permanent repair of the hole in his kitchen wall. That was not appropriate and the resident had to chase it up on 20 January 2024. The landlord raised a routine repair following that contact. It completed a repair within 28 days on 14 February 2024. It removed the temporary foam, installed mesh to prevent rats and filled the wall. That action was appropriate and solved the issue.
  5. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s initial reports of a rat infestation and his request to temporarily repair the hole in his kitchen wall. However, as the landlord did not contact the resident to arrange a permanent repair it did not show it had considered the distress the issues had caused him. It extended the period where the resident was concerned the rats may be able to return. For that reason, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a rat infestation in his kitchen.
  6. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing a permanent repair of his kitchen wall. That figure is in line with the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and with the landlord’s compensation policy which allows it to award between £100 and £300 for distress.

Complaint handling

  1. While the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint was non-statutory it provided landlords with best practice guidance. It stated that landlords should have a 2-stage complaints policy. Landlords should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. They should provide their stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy reflected the Code.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the day after it received it. While it was proactive in responding the substantive issue of the complaint it delayed in providing its stage 1 response. Although it was reasonable it kept the stage 1 complaint open at the resident’s request it is noted by the point he made that request, the stage 1 complaint had been open for over 30 working days. That did not show it was following its complaints policy. It was appropriate it apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response. However, given the response was provided 51 working days after the resident first made his complaint the landlord missed an opportunity to award the resident compensation for the inconvenience he experienced.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 2 days of his escalation request. Under the 20-working day timeframe it should have provided its response by 13 November 2023. It was after that date, 27 November 2023 when it apologised for its delay in providing a response. It assured the resident it would provide its response by 8 December 2023.
  4. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 16 May 2024. That was over 7 months after it should have under its complaints policy. As it failed to keep the assurance it made to provide its response by 8 December 2023 it risked the resident losing confidence with it. While again, it apologised in its stage 2 response it did not go far enough to put things right. For that reason, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It has not shown to the resident that it appreciated the distress and inconvenience its poor complaint handling caused him.
  5. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the adverse impact caused to the resident by its unreasonable delay in responding to his complaint at both stages. That figure is in line with both the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation broken down as:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing a damp and mould inspection and subsequent repairs.
      2. £100 for the distress caused by its delay in repairing the hole in his kitchen wall where he was concerned rats could re-enter his home.
      3. £200 for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reimbursing the cost of the dehumidifier the resident bought in 2023. The landlord may require the resident to provide proof of purchase.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,330 it awarded in its stage 1 response if it has not done so already.