Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Lewes District Council (202446507)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446507

Lewes District Council

31 July 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:

  1. adaptations required to the property;
  2. associated complaint.

Background

2.     The resident is a joint secure tenant of the council. The tenancy started on 17 October 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.

3.     The resident and her son have medical conditions. The resident has multiple sclerosis (MS), greaves disease and thyroid eye disease. The resident’s son has autism, sensory processing disorder and high anxiety.

4.     The resident said on 25 September 2023 she would not accept an offer of permanent accommodation made by the council. The reason stated was the anti-social behaviour in the area made it unsuitable for her and her family. The resident asked the landlord to progress funding for the adaptations to the property.

5.     On 27 September 2023, the occupational therapist (OT) asked the landlord to reconsider undertaking adaptions to the property. The OT suggested the installation of a through floor lift by utilising a bedroom used by one of the resident’s sons. This was on the basis the council rehoused the resident’s son.

6.     The landlord’s surveyor advised on 1 November 2023 the first floor of the property could not be adapted for wheel chair use.

7.     The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 February 2024. The resident said:

  1. The landlord had failed to resolve her housing situation.
  2. Her MS was active. Most days she was bed bound and wheel chair dependent.
  3. Since 2019 she had received chemotherapy and her son had disabilities. Her son did not attend school and she had been unable to parent or be a wife for the past 10 years.
  4. Her preferred outcome was the landlord to resolve her housing situation.

8.     The landlord provided its complaints responses. The stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2024 and its final complaint response on 24 April 2024. The landlord said:

  1. The complaint investigation would look at the resident’s concerns for the past year. The investigation could not consider the past 14 years.
  2. The allocation team made an offer of a 3-bedroom bungalow in 2022 and in the summer of 2023, suggested the merger of 2 adjacent properties. The resident had refused both the offer of accommodation and the merger of 2 properties to create a single property.
  3. The allocation team assessed every empty property to see if one was suitable for the resident and her family.
  4. There was a limited supply of permanent properties available to meet the resident’s needs and the resident had requested rehousing in a specific location.
  5. The resident’s housing application was awarded A star status and the resident should bid for housing through the housing register.
  6. The current property would not be adapted to meet the resident’s needs. It had put possible adaptations on hold because of continued significant budgetary constraints.
  7. The housing officer has assisted with queries and communicated with the resident.
  8. The complaint was not upheld as there had been challenges in finding a suitable alternative property that would meet the resident’s needs in the location requested.

9.     After the complaint process ended, the following happened:

  1. The allocations team made the resident an offer of a 2-bedroom house on 15 July 2024. The resident refused the property.
  2. The resident’s eldest son left the property by 30 December 2024. The landlord considered whether the increased footprint allowed for changes to the ground floor of the property.
  3. Housing solutions forum met on 31 March 2025 to discuss the resident’s situation. Among other things it noted it had 19 2-bedroom bungalows. However, none were available. It had identified a 2-bedroom bungalow it could purchase.
  4. The landlord purchased a 2-bedroom bungalow on 21 May 2025 to meet the resident’s needs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the investigation will consider the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family.

11. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident has said the suitability of her housing has been an issue since 2014. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in February 2024. Generally, the Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise a complaint within a reasonable period of the issues occurring. This investigation focuses on the period from  April 2023 onwards, since this is a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint and it is also the period considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. Any information related to an earlier period is provided for context only.

12. The resident’s complaint also centres on her wait for permanent social housing. The allocation of permanent housing is the responsibility of the council under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. While the allocation process falls within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, the landlord can consider whether the resident qualifies for a management transfer. Therefore, the resident’s concerns about her move to permanent accommodation under Part VI of the Housing Act does not fall within the scope of this investigation. This is better dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the resident can make a complaint for his consideration.

The adaptations required to the property

13. This has clearly been a difficult period for the resident and it is appreciated the resident has been upset and distressed by her current housing situation. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful. However, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and to the formal complaint was fair and reasonable. This is in all circumstances of the case and in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.

14. The landlord’s adaptations policy says it will fund works following an OT assessment to address specific medical need. It would assist residents when making a new housing application to join the register and wait for a suitable alternative property. Priority will be awarded in line with the allocations policy.

15. The adaptation policy also says each property will be individually assessed and recommended works does not mean the landlord will undertake the works required. The assessment will include factors such as: costs of works, technical viability of adaptations, location, type of property, under occupation and likelihood of needing further adaptations in the future. Also, whether alternative accommodation would provide a better long-term solution, value for money and less upheaval for the resident. An adaptation of the property could be refused for any of the above reasons. The landlord should give refusal reasons in writing.

16. Given the landlord had accepted the property required adaptations it was necessary for it to monitor the resident’s situation and keep it under review. The landlord in the autumn of 2022 determined it did not have sufficient funds to progress an extension to the property due to the cost of the required adaptations. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It was reasonable for the landlord to work with the allocations team in line with its adaptions policy, who made the resident an offer of permanent accommodation in October 2022. The resident refused the offer as the property did not have parking and the council accepted the resident’s refusal reasons.

17. There is a gap of nearly 11 months before the OT contacted the landlord on 27 September 2023. The OT asked the landlord to reconsider undertaking major adaptations to the property on the understanding the resident’s middle son ceased to occupy the property. In addition, the OT requested the landlord to consider the feasibility of installing a through floor lift using the space gained from the bedroom the resident’s son occupied. The landlord agreed to do this. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there were any other practical or affordable action it could take to meet the long-term housing needs of the resident and her family.

18. However, it took until 1 November 2023, 28 working days later for a surveyor to attend. The landlord does not have a published timescale for carrying out such inspections. The inspection could have taken place earlier. Given it was aware of the history of the case and the time the resident had spent waiting for adaptations to the property. The landlord also was aware of the difficulties the resident was experiencing occupying the property. It was a short coming the landlord did not take steps to prioritise the inspection.

19.   The landlord’s surveyor on 1 November 2023 assessed the first floor to the property did not have a large enough footprint to enable wheel chair access for the resident. Therefore, the property could not be adapted to meet the resident’s needs. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified staff in confirming its position and to show it had considered the OT request in full.

20.   It was reasonable for the landlord to communicate to the resident which adaptations could be carried out due to the structure of the property. On 22 November 2023, it set out its position to the resident and informed the resident she would need to register for alternative accommodation on the housing register. The housing officer collected the housing register form on 4 December 2023 and used the opportunity to discuss with the resident her housing needs including the need to remain in the area. This was in line with its adaptations policy as the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about the rehousing options available to her.

21.   The landlord should seek to routinely look at individual solutions to meet resident’s needs. The landlord in its final complaint response outlined the steps taken to find alternative accommodation for the resident. The landlord said it  had worked with the allocations team to find a suitable permanent property, that empty properties were assessed to see if they were suitable for the resident’s needs and the resident had been awarded the highest rehousing priority.

22.   Good communication is essential to improve the landlord and tenant relationship as it ensures the responsibilities of the landlord are clear and manages expectations. The evidence shows the resident was updated when the landlord determined the adaptations to the property could not be carried out due to the cost. In reaching its decision, the landlord had regard to the information provided from the resident, advising she did not want to remain in the property and wanted to move to another property. This was reasonable as the landlord was unlikely to find a short-term solution to the resident’s housing needs, it was important the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.

23.   The landlord demonstrated it dealt in an empathetic way with the resident and her family. It acknowledged the vulnerabilities of the resident and her children and acknowledged the impact of her partner’s work commitments. This meant the family needed to live in a specific location which impacted on the properties available to meet the resident’s needs.

24.   The landlord in its complaint responses did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said there were challenges sourcing alternative accommodation due to high demand and limited supply of properties. The landlord apologised for any communication failures experienced by the resident. While we acknowledge the difficulties experienced by the resident and her household, overall the landlord has acted appropriately in deciding whether complex adaptations were both reasonable and practicable. Its decision to pursue permanent alternative accommodation was reasonable once it decided it could not adapt the property and its later decision to purchase a property to resolve the resident’s housing needs showed it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and that of her household. For those reasons, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling

25.   The landlord’s complaint procedures says it will answer Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

26.   The resident complained to the landlord on 1 February 2024. The following day on 2 February 2024 the landlord sent its complaint procedure to the resident and said it would respond to the complaint by 15 February 2024. In line with its complaint procedure, on 6 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. In the acknowledgement the landlord took the opportunity to explain to the resident, it was likely there could be a delay to its complaint response as it had staff shortages and high workloads. It was reasonable for the landlord to set out its complaint handling time limits and manage the resident’s expectations by setting out early the possibility of any likely delays.

27.   In communication with the resident, the landlord on 7 February 2024 said the complaint response should be sent within 10 working days. However, the landlord did not meet the timescale or contact the resident to request an extension to the complaint response. This was not reasonable as its failure to follow commitments given in its communication with the resident did not provide reassurance it was taking her concerns seriously. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

28.   The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2024. This took 16 working days. This was outside of its published complaint timescale of 10 working days. The landlord delayed in providing the resident with its position on her complaint.

29.   The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 23 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 26 February 2024 and sent its S2 response on 24 April 2024. The landlord took 41 days to provide its complaint response. This was not reasonable as it was significantly outside its complaint handling timelines of 20 working days and those outlined in our complaint handling code. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.

30.   The landlord gave the resident escalation rights to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the council’s allocation policy. As the resident’s complaint falls within the jurisdiction of both ombudsmen, in this particular case, this is not considered a failing.

31.   The landlord in its review of its complaint handling apologised for the inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord said the delay was outside its control However, it did not consider whether redress was appropriate for the delay experienced by the resident in receiving its complaint response. This was a failing.

32.   Overall, the landlord did not meet its complaint handling timescales when it considered the resident’s complaint. This was not reasonable as its complaint handling is a way of maintaining resident trust and satisfaction. There was an unacceptable delay experienced by the resident in receiving the landlord’s complaint responses. For those reasons, a finding of service failure has been made.

Determination

33. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the adaptations required to the property.

34. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

  1. Write to apologise for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handing failures.

36. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the above timescales.