Newcastle City Council (202440970)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440970

Newcastle City Council

19 August 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:
1. garage door repairs.
2. front door repairs.
3. damp and mould.
4. leak issues from above and the resident’s request that it decorate.
5. reports of an insect infestation.
6. the request that it replace the living room radiator.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 1997. The landlord is also the local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded mental health vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has also told us that she is dyslexic.
The resident complained to the landlord on 19 November 2024. Among other things she said a leak from above had damaged her possessions and radiators were too small to heat rooms. She also raised concerns about black mould and an insect infestation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 November 2024. It said it had attended that day to inspect the resident’s concerns. It said:
1. it noted there was no current leak from above and directed the resident to report further issues.
2. it had raised work to treat mould behind kitchen units.
3. it had assessed 5 radiators in the property for replacement in 2023, but there had been some miscommunication and work had not been completed. It said this work would be completed on 16 December 2024.
4. it had arranged for pest control to attend on 4 December 2024.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 December 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 January 2025. It said its operative had attended to complete mould treatment to the kitchen, but the resident had refused this work. It apologised that pest control had not attended as agreed and said it had arranged another appointment. It noted the resident’s request that it replace her living room radiator. It said this had not been considered necessary when it inspected and was not agreed as part of its complaint resolution. The landlord noted the resident had also recently reported a new leak from above. It set out steps it had taken to address this.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not fitted a new radiator in her living room. She also raised concerns that the fly infestation had not been eradicated, and that the landlord had not completed decoration following leaks from above. She wanted compensation and for repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 42.g of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes”.
In her initial complaint to the landlord the resident raised concerns about its handling of repairs to her garage door. The resident rents this garage from the landlord under a separate agreement which is not part of her tenancy agreement. Any repair issues affecting this garage do not affect her property. As this garage is provided by the landlord in its capacity as the local authority, it may be a matter the resident can refer to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s garage door is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to consider referring her concerns to LGSCO.
The resident told us of her ongoing concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her front door. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. That is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
While the resident raised concerns about her front door in her initial complaint, she did not set out any ongoing concern when she escalated her complaint. As a result, the landlord’s subsequent stage 2 complaint response did not address this issue.
After careful consideration we have decided that the resident’s complaint about front door repairs is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It would be appropriate for the resident to raise any outstanding concerns about this with the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given fair opportunity to respond to these concerns prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. She may refer the matter back to the Ombudsman once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, should she remain dissatisfied.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has since told us of her concern about an area of damp in the living room. When she escalated her complaint with the landlord in December 2024 she raised concerns about its treatment of black mould behind her kitchen units. She did not raise any concern about damp/mould in other parts of the property. The resident also told us that work pest control requested, to check her drain, has not yet been completed. Records show this work was raised after the resident made further contact with pest control in March 2025.
It would be appropriate for the resident to raise her concerns about treatment of an area of damp in the living room and the work to check her drain with the landlord in the first instance. As noted earlier, this is because the landlord needs to be given fair opportunity to respond to these concerns prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to appropriately address her outstanding concerns in respect of these issues.

Damp and mould

On its website, the landlord sets out its approach to responding to reports of damp and mould. It says it will ensure repairs to resolve issues with damp and mould are completed in line with timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. This says that it will complete routine repairs within 15 working days.
After inspecting the resident’s property in November 2024, the landlord identified and raised work to treat behind units in the kitchen. That was appropriate. However, in her escalation request the resident said this work was outstanding and that she believed kitchen cupboards needed to be replaced.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted the resident had refused access when it attended to treat mould in her kitchen. The resident confirmed, when she spoke to the landlord on 7 January 2025, that she had not allowed work as she had been told by pest control that kitchen units needed to be replaced.
The landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response that it had spoken to the pest control who said it would not have provided such advice to the resident. Further, there is no evidence that pest control had attended the resident’s property during this time. Nonetheless, the landlord apology to the resident for any conflicting information she may have been provided was reasonable.
The landlord noted in its response that treatment to the kitchen units had been rescheduled and successfully completed in January 2025. It said it had confirmed this when it spoke to the resident on 20 January 2025. We have seen a note of its call to her at this time. It detailed that she said “all works were completed”. However, its records do not show that work to treat behind kitchen units had in fact been completed. Further, when pest control attended on 23 January 2025 it said this work was still outstanding.
The landlord spoke to the resident in early February 2025, and she agreed to it completing the work to treat mould. It subsequently completed work during March 2025. While that was appropriate, the landlord should reasonably have checked its records when issuing its stage 2 complaint response to ensure work had in fact been completed. That it did not do so was a failing as it may then have been able to make earlier arrangements to complete outstanding work.
While we acknowledge its earlier efforts to complete this work, we have found service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould. With consideration to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the remedies guidance), we have ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for this failing.

Leak issues from above and the resident’s request that it decorate

The resident told the landlord in November 2024 of previous leak issues from above. The landlord took appropriate steps to establish the resident had last experienced a leak in October 2023. It noted internally that it would not be seeking for the property above, which was leasehold, to engage a plumber. That was reasonable as it had found no evidence of a current leak.
After she escalated her complaint, the landlord spoke to the resident in January 2025 and noted she had reported a current leak from above. In its stage 2 complaint response in January 2025 the landlord clearly explained steps it had taken to contact the leaseholder of the property above. It said it was working with them to ensure necessary repairs to resolve the leak. Internal records show repair work was completed in January 2025, and the resident subsequently confirmed the leak was resolved. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of a leak from above were reasonable.
The resident had also said that her possession had been damaged by the leak from above. The landlord noted in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had approached her own insurance to claim for damage to her decoration and belongings. The resident confirmed this to us but said she had been unable to claim for damage to decoration under her own insurance.
After the resident reported a further leak from above in January 2025 the landlord provided her with details of how she could submit a claim to its own insurance team for damages to her personal property. While that was appropriate, it would have been reasonable for it to provide this information to her during its stage 1 complaint response. Doing so would have allowed the resident to explore earlier whether she could submit a claim for some damage through the landlord’s insurance. The delay in the landlord providing this information to the resident was a failing.
The resident said in her escalation request that she wanted the landlord to decorate her property following the leak from above. The landlord noted internally that decoration would be the resident’s responsibility. Under the law of negligence, responsibility for this would depend on how damage had been caused. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord clearly explained this to the resident. It made no reference to this in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that she may contact its insurance team to make a claim for any damage to her personal property. But it would have been reasonable for it to clarify that this may include damage to decoration.
Instead, the landlord provided no clear response to the resident’s request that it decorate her property. As a result, she was left feeling dissatisfied that it has not done so. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of leak issues from above and the resident’s request for it to decorate her property. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £75 in recognition of the failings we have identified. This award is in line with the remedies guidance.

Insect infestation

The landlord does not have a pest control policy. However, its neighbourhood manager policy says it will work with pest control to arrange for inspections and treatment of pests within its properties.
After the resident raised concerns about a fly infestation in November 2024, the landlord agreed to arrange for pest control to attend. However, the initial appointment it arranged in December 2024 resulted in a failed appointment. Records indicate this was because the landlord did not pass appointment details on to pest control.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this failing in its stage 2 complaint response. But it gave no consideration to awarding the resident any compensation for the failed appointment. It should reasonably have done so as the resident would have been inconvenienced by making herself available for it. Further, it meant that pest control attendance was delayed until January 2025. At this time pest control provided the resident with advice, and recommended work to treat mould in her kitchen proceed.
The landlord told us that it considers appropriate remedies, including financial compensation, with reference to the remedies guidance. It should reasonably have recognised the impact of its failed appointment on the resident by making a suitable award in line with the remedies guidance. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £50. This award is in line with the remedies guidance.

Living room radiator

When the resident initially complained to the landlord in November 2024, she said radiators in her property were too small to heat rooms. The landlord’s inspection from this time detailed that it would arrange to replace radiators previously agreed. However, as this did not include replacing the living room radiator, it should have clearly recorded and explained how it had investigated the resident’s concern that this radiator was too small.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had not considered it necessary to replace the living room radiator when it inspected her property. But, as noted above, inspection records from November 2024 do not show how it had considered the resident’s concerns about that radiator. We have seen no records that adequately demonstrate the landlord had considered this.
Following further contact from the resident the landlord attended to inspect her living room radiator in March 2025. After, it recorded that it had authorised a new radiator for the living room. The operative who attended and authorised the work noted the existing radiator was single panel and that a new double panel radiator was “required”. This work has since been completed.
Overall we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it replace the living room radiator. It did not adequately demonstrate it had appropriately considered the suitability of the resident’s living room radiator in November 2024. It then delayed arranging a further inspection of her ongoing concerns following her escalation request. Instead, she had to spend time and effort requesting this, and had to wait until March 2025 before it did so.
With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £150. This is in line with the remedies guidance and is fair recognition of the impact of failings we have identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concern about garage door repairs is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about front door repairs is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of leak issues from above and the resident’s request that it decorate.
3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of an insect infestation.
4. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request that it replace the living room radiator.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. write to apologise to the resident for failings identified in this report.
  1. pay the resident compensation of £275, made up of:
  2. £75 for failings in its handling of leak issues from above and the resident’s request that it decorate.
  3. £50 for failings in its handling of reports of an insect infestation.
  4. £150 for failings in its handling of the request that it replace the living room radiator.

Recommendations

We recommend that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to:
1. confirm vulnerabilities that should be recorded for her.
2. respond to outstanding concerns she has in respect of damp in her living room and the work to check her drain raised in March 2025.
We recommend that within 16 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord consider implementing a pest control policy in order to provide greater clarity for residents and staff.