Ask the council to confirm in writing exactly why the disrepair evidence was rejected and what additional proof would make it acceptable, then submit a single, organised resubmission through the council’s official housing repairs or complaints route. If nothing is done, the issue usually drifts into repeated back-and-forth while the property condition worsens and any later inspection becomes harder to evidence. Keep the focus on a clear repair outcome and a dated paper trail rather than arguing about blame. If the council still refuses to act after a reasonable chance to review the evidence, escalate using the council’s formal complaints stages and request a fresh inspection.
What the problem is
This comes up most often in council or housing association tenancies in the UK when a tenant reports damp, mould, leaks, heating failures, unsafe electrics, or recurring pests and then sends photos, videos, or contractor notes to support the report. The rejection usually appears after an initial repair report has been logged but before a meaningful inspection takes place, or after a first visit where the operative records “no issue found” and the tenant challenges it. It can also happen after a partial response, such as a small patch repair or a dehumidifier drop-off, where the underlying cause remains and the tenant’s follow-up evidence is dismissed as “not conclusive”.
In practice, the rejection is rarely a single clear refusal; it is more often framed as the evidence being “insufficient”, “not showing the cause”, “historic”, “tenant lifestyle related”, or “not matching the job raised”. The effect is the same: repairs are delayed, the case is closed or downgraded, and the tenant is left trying to prove a problem that is already affecting day-to-day living. This tends to surface after the tenant has already tried the normal repairs line and is moving towards a complaint, especially where there are repeated reports about the same defect.
Why this happens
Evidence is often rejected because it does not fit the council’s internal thresholds for raising certain types of work, especially where a repair would trigger more expensive investigations or major works. Photos can be dismissed as unclear, taken in poor light, or not showing scale; videos can be treated as non-diagnostic; and third-party notes can be discounted if the council did not commission them. Where damp and mould are involved, councils commonly push for “ventilation and heating advice” first, which can lead to evidence being treated as a symptom rather than a repair need.
Another common driver is process friction: repairs teams, contractors, and complaints teams may hold different records, and evidence sent to one inbox does not always land on the job file that the surveyor sees. If the original repair was logged under the wrong category (for example, “condensation” rather than “leak”), later evidence can be rejected because it does not match the job description. There is also an incentive to close jobs quickly to meet internal targets, which can lead to premature closure when an operative cannot access, cannot replicate the issue on the day, or records “no defect”.
A typical organisational pattern is a request for “more evidence” without specifying what would actually change the decision, followed by a closure note that the tenant “did not provide sufficient information”.
Your rights in practice
The practical position in the UK is that a council landlord is expected to keep the structure and key installations in working order and to respond to repair reports within a reasonable time based on risk. The strongest leverage usually comes from making the issue easy to verify and hard to ignore: a clear timeline, repeated reports, and evidence that shows impact and persistence. Councils tend to move faster when the report is framed around safety, habitability, and access for inspection rather than a debate about fault.
Where evidence has been rejected, it often helps to reset the process by asking for a specific inspection or surveyor visit and confirming availability for access windows. If the council claims the evidence is not enough, asking what evidence would be enough forces a decision point and reduces the chance of endless requests. If there is a health impact, the practical approach is to keep it factual and tied to the property condition (for example, persistent mould in a bedroom, repeated boiler failure in winter) rather than making broad allegations.
Complaints leverage is usually strongest when the council has missed its own timescales, closed jobs without inspection, failed to follow up after a missed appointment, or repeatedly treated the same defect as a new report. A calm request for a written decision, a fresh inspection, and a single point of contact often produces a more structured response than repeated calls to the repairs line.
Official basis in UK
The main official route that usually resolves a council landlord dispute about rejected disrepair evidence is the Housing Ombudsman complaints process. In practice, the Ombudsman looks at whether the landlord investigated properly, kept adequate records, communicated clearly, and offered a reasonable remedy where service failure is found. The Ombudsman is not a quick emergency repair service, but the process often prompts councils to reopen cases, arrange inspections, and provide clearer decisions because the file has to be defensible and evidenced.
Before the Ombudsman can consider a case, the council’s internal complaints stages normally need to be completed, so the immediate goal is to get the issue into the formal complaints route with a clear request for an inspection and a written position on the evidence. The Ombudsman’s website explains how to complain and what the landlord is expected to do during complaint handling: GOV.UK guidance.
Evidence that matters
The evidence that tends to carry weight is evidence that shows persistence over time, location, and impact, and that links to a specific repair request. Councils respond better to a single organised bundle than to scattered messages, especially where multiple issues are being reported. If the council says the evidence is unclear, adding context (date, room, what happened, what was already reported) often matters more than sending more images.
Useful items usually include dated photos from the same angle over time, short videos showing active leaks or failed heating controls, copies of repair reference numbers, and any written notes from council operatives about what they saw. If there are missed appointments, screenshots or texts confirming dates and times can be important. Where damp and mould are involved, simple readings (humidity/temperature) can help, but only if they are tied to the room and date and not presented as a substitute for inspection.
One thing not to do yet is pay for major remedial works and then send the bill expecting automatic reimbursement, unless the council has agreed in writing.
Checklist to prepare:
- Repair reference numbers and dates of every report about the same defect.
- Dated photos showing the same area over time, plus one photo showing the wider room for context.
- Any council letters, emails, or texts that mention closure, “no issue found”, or requests for more evidence.
- A short timeline of what happened on inspection days, including access offered and who attended.
Three common mistakes:
- Sending dozens of images without dates or room labels, making it hard to match evidence to the job.
- Arguing about motives or blame instead of asking for a specific inspection and written decision.
- Letting the council close the job without challenging the closure in writing using the complaint stage.
What to do next
Get a reason
Reply once, in writing, asking the council to confirm the exact reason the evidence was rejected and what additional information would meet its threshold to act. Ask for the response to be added to the repair record and request the current status of the job (open, on hold, closed) with the job number. If the rejection came by phone, follow up by email or the council portal message system so there is a dated record.
Resubmit cleanly
Resubmit the evidence as a single bundle through the council’s official repairs reporting route or tenant portal, or as an attachment to the formal complaint if the repairs route keeps closing the job. Do not create new reports for the same defect unless the council instructs it, because that often fragments the record. Include a short cover note that links each item of evidence to a room and date and states the repair outcome being requested (for example, investigate source of leak, inspect roof void, test extractor, check boiler fault codes).
Request inspection
Ask for a surveyor inspection where the issue is recurring or where operatives have recorded “no defect”. Offer a few access windows and confirm any vulnerabilities in the household that affect scheduling, without sharing unnecessary personal details. If the issue is intermittent (for example, leaks during heavy rain), say so and ask how the council wants that evidenced, such as moisture readings on the day or a follow-up visit after rainfall.
Use official complaint
If the council has rejected evidence and closed the job, move it into the council’s official complaints process rather than continuing informal contact. Use the council’s published complaint form or online complaints page, usually found under “Complaints”, “Housing complaints”, or “Council housing”. Prepare the information first, then submit once, keeping the complaint focused on service failure: rejection without clear criteria, failure to inspect properly, repeated closures, or missed timescales.
Checklist for the complaint submission:
- Property address and tenancy reference (if available) plus the repair job numbers.
- A one-page timeline with dates of reports, visits, closures, and what was said.
- The evidence bundle labelled by date and room, with a short index.
- The remedy being requested: inspection by a surveyor, written findings, and a repair plan with timescales.
The normal response timeframe is set by the council’s complaint policy, but a first-stage reply is commonly expected within a few weeks. If there is no response by the council’s stated deadline, escalate by submitting a stage-two request through the same official complaints route, attaching the original complaint and noting the missed deadline. If stage two is not answered within the council’s stated timeframe, keep the record and prepare to take the completed complaint history to the Housing Ombudsman route described above.
In many UK cases the issue is resolved when a surveyor visit is booked and a written inspection outcome is issued, because it stops the cycle of “insufficient evidence” and turns the problem into a scheduled repair plan.
A typical real UK outcome is that the council agrees to a further inspection and carries out targeted works after the complaint reaches a later stage.
Related issues on this site
If the rejected evidence relates to damp and mould that keeps being labelled as “condensation”, it can help to compare the council’s response against common damp reporting patterns and what usually persuades a landlord to investigate properly; see damp and mould blamed on lifestyle. If the problem is repeated job closures or missed appointments rather than the defect itself, the next issue to consider is how to challenge poor repairs handling without restarting the clock each time; see council repairs keep closing job.
Get help with the next step
Contact UKFixGuide — Get help drafting a clear complaint summary that links your evidence to the repair job numbers and asks for a surveyor inspection.
2 thoughts on “Evidence of disrepair rejected by council”