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.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202206014)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206014

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The kitchen sink needing to be replaced.
    3. Works needed to the loft, including renewal of the loft insulation and a hole in the party wall.
    4. Repairs to the front and rear doors and frames.
    5. Repairs to the upstairs windows and an external windowsill.
  2. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom, end of terrace house and the landlord is a local authority. The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 2011 and has a joint tenancy with his wife. The landlord has advised us that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities or disabilities in the resident’s household.
  2. The resident contacted us in June, August and September 2022 to say that he had previously submitted a disrepair claim to the landlord and although the landlord had completed some of the agreed repairs, there were still outstanding issues. We wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2022 and requested it to raise a new complaint. The landlord sent a stage 2 reply to the resident on 22 September 2022 and said that a new roof would be fitted to the resident’s property by the end of the year and that any internal damage (caused by rain) would then be addressed.
  3. During January 2023, the landlord carried out works to foam fill gaps around the window frames, fit new window trims, remove and refit the sink top and fill holes in the inner leaf of the cavity wall. During the remainder of 2023, the landlord carried out various repairs, including repairing a damaged external step, works to the threshold to the kitchen back door and fitting new insulation and boarding to the loft. The resident wrote to the landlord in October 2023 and said that the following works were still outstanding:
    1. Dampness in the kitchen.
    2. The kitchen sink needed replacing.
    3. The kitchen windowsill had been broken during the roof replacement work.
    4. There was a hole in the party wall in the loft area.
    5. There was damage to the ceiling in the small bedroom from when the loft insulation was replaced and the tops of the walls in the same bedroom were damp.
    6. The back kitchen door and the step had been removed and refitted incorrectly.
    7. The rubber window seals on the upstairs windows had perished.
    8. The front door frame was loose.
    9. When the operatives had removed the step in the kitchen, they said water had been leaking under the kitchen floor.
  4. Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2023 and asked it to issue a complaint response based on the above-mentioned concerns raised by the resident. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 10 January 2024 in which it stated the following:
    1. The work to address the damp in the kitchen, including replacing the sink was booked to be done from 15 to 18 April 2024.
    2. The reported leak under the kitchen floor had been inspected at the end of November and the Inspector did not find any evidence to suggest there was a leak.
    3. The work to repair the hole in the party wall in the loft had been booked in for 2 February 2024.
    4. The broken windowsill and door would be attended to on 23 January 2024.
    5. The work to the window rubber seals would be attended to on 23 January 2024.
    6. The reported problem with the door had also been booked in for 23 January 2024.
    7. The landlord apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs and said it would assign a member of its Customer Care team to be the point of contact until the repairs were completed.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day (10 January 2024) and advised the landlord that he would be in hospital on 23 and 24 February 2024. He also questioned why his complaint had not been progressed to the final stage of the complaints process (the Chief Executive review stage). The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 9 February 2024 in which it stated the following:
    1. An operative had attended on 5 February 2024 to address the hole in the party wall in the loft area but had concluded that it was a 2-person job. The landlord had therefore booked a new appointment for 1 March 2024.
    2. Operatives had attended on 23 January 2024 to repair the loose front and back doorframes and the external windowsill. However, they were unable to get access and therefore a new appointment had now been booked for 16 February 2024.
    3. An operative had also attended on 23 January 2024 to replace the rubber gaskets on the upstairs windows but due to non-access, a new appointment was booked for 8 March 2024.
    4. The landlord asked the resident to advise if he could not be present for any of the appointments.
    5. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for the delay in repairing the kitchen as this could not be done until April 2024.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 February 2024 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. He said he had notified the landlord beforehand that he had a hospital appointment on 23 January 2024 and yet operatives had still attended on that day. He said that several operatives had attended to repair the external doors and inspect the hole in the party wall inside the loft but the work was still not complete. He added that there were still issues with mould, water ingress, the kitchen sink and the kitchen step.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 February 2024 and provided further updates regarding repairs that had been completed and some that were still outstanding. The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £100 to £300.
  8. The resident wrote to us on 8 April 2024 and listed various matters he wanted us to investigate. The resident advised us on 4 August 2025 that the landlord had fitted thermal boarding to the hallway and bedroom ceilings but he was still concerned that the mould might return in the winter. He said he was particularly concerned because his wife had been diagnosed with serious medical conditions.
  9. The landlord advised us on 13 August 2025 that all of the damp and mould works to the kitchen had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised us on 16 September 2022 that damp and mould had been recurring in his property since 2017. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from August 2022 when we wrote to the landlord asking it to log a stage 1 complaint. Reference to the events that occurred prior this have been made in this report to provide context.
  2. On 12 December 2024, the resident sent us a copy of a letter from his doctor explaining that he and his wife had been experiencing ongoing issues with breathing and were having “regular acute exacerbations”. The doctor stated that the reported mould in the property may be the cause of their worsening respiratory symptoms. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
  3. We have received information showing events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 9 February 2024 and its follow-up letter dated 26 February 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s letter dated 26 February 2024. Information following this letter has, however, been included in this report for context.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident had corresponded with the landlord about several different repairs and the landlord had raised orders for a number of these repairs. Whilst we have considered all of the evidence sent to us, we consider it fair and reasonable to focus our investigation on the repairs that were covered in the landlord’s final complaint response letter dated 9 February 2024.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and the foundations, staircases, bannisters, internal and external plasterwork. The exterior is the outside of the building, including external walls and the roof. It includes drains, guttering and external pipes.
  3. The landlord’s Home Repairs Policy categorises types of repairs as:
    1. ‘Emergency same day repair’ – attend and make safe within 6 hours.
    2. ‘Emergency repair’ – attend and make safe within 24 hours.
    3. ‘Urgent repair’ – attend and if possible complete the repair within 3 working days.
    4. ‘Routine repair’ – attend and complete the repair within 20 working days.
    5. ‘Planned repair’ – attend to plan the works and complete within 40 working days.
    6. ‘Major repair’ – attend to plan the works and complete within 40 days.
  4. The policy also states:
    1. An emergency repair is defined by the landlord as a repair “which if not dealt with quickly, could cause injury to the occupants, public or further damage to the home”.
    2. “Where replacement items are required that include major works to your home such as kitchens, bathrooms or roof replacements we may complete minor repairs only. The replacement will then be arranged via our investment team and completed as a one off or in a programme of works to your estate”.
    3. “A level of additional priority may be offered to our more vulnerable customers…”.
  5. Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2022 regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2022 and said it understood the work it had previously carried out to internal areas of the property had now been damaged by a roof leak. The landlord confirmed that the roof would be renewed and it would then carry out any remedial works needed internally. The landlord said it was unable to provide a date for the roof works but said they would be completed by the end of the year.
  6. Whilst we understand the landlord was waiting for major roofing works to be carried out, in our view it was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged an inspection of the property. We had forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord a month earlier reporting damp and mould throughout the property. It was therefore incumbent on the landlord to inspect the property to assess the damp and mould and determine the extent to which it was a hazard to the resident under the HHSRS. The landlord could then decide whether any interim remedial work was needed, such as arranging a mould wash.
  7. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the roof was renewed, however, the resident contacted us in November 2022 to say that scaffolding had been erected. Based on this information and other evidence received from the resident, our conclusion is that the roof was renewed in December 2022, which was about 3 months after the landlord wrote to the resident in September 2022. This was a reasonable timescale for renewing the roof because roof renewals are typically carried out as part of a programme of works, rather than responsive repairs.
  8. The landlord’s records show that following the roof renewal it carried out various repairs, including replastering. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 and said there were still repairs outstanding, including rising damp in the kitchen and damp patches on the top of the walls in the small bedroom. The resident advised the landlord that he and his wife both suffered from ill health.
  9. The landlord raised an order on 8 November 2023 to inspect the property to assess damp and mould issues and an inspection was carried out on 27 November 2023. It is unclear from the evidence seen why there was a delay in inspecting the property following the resident’s email of 12 October 2023. It took 7 weeks between this date and the inspection date, which was unreasonable given that the resident had advised the landlord that he and his wife had health issues.
  10. As a result of the inspection, the landlord raised an order on 4 December 2023 to carry out various works to address the damp, including relaying loft insulation, renewing the kitchen and bathroom flooring and replastering. It had therefore taken 7 days to raise the orders following the inspection, which was a reasonable timescale given the extensive scope of the works identified by the Surveyor.
  11. Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2023 and requested it to log a formal complaint regarding the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs, including reports of rising damp in the kitchen, damp patches at the top of the wall in the small bedroom and water ingress under the kitchen flooring. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 10 January 2024 and stated that:
    1. The landlord’s Surveyor had inspected the kitchen floor on 27 November 2023 and did not find any evidence of a leak under the floor.
    2. That the remedial work for the damp in the kitchen was booked in to be done from 15 to 18 April 2024.
  12. As the Surveyor had inspected the kitchen on 27 November 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his findings that there was no leak under the kitchen floor. In terms of the timing of the remedial work for the damp in the kitchen, the landlord had raised the order on 4 December 2023 as part of its planned works programme to be completed within 90 working days. The appointment to start the works on 15 April 2024 was within this 90-working day period and was therefore within the target timescale. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered the information from the resident that he and his wife had health issues when scheduling the work to the kitchen.
  13. Given the health issues reported by the resident, our view is that the timescale for carrying out the work to the kitchen was unreasonable. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it may give a level of additional priority for more vulnerable residents and we have not seen any evidence that the landlord followed this policy.
  14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 February 2024 and explained that it was unable to bring the appointment for the kitchen works forward because the work involved multiple trades which needed to be coordinated. It apologised for this and offered the resident £100 compensation as it was unable to offer an earlier appointment. It was reasonable that the landlord had offered discretionary compensation to recognise the resident’s frustration in having to wait a further 2 months for the works to begin.
  15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 February 2024 and said that his bathroom ceiling was going mouldy again even though it had previously been painted by the landlord’s contractor. He also said the small bedroom had water ingress from the ceiling and was starting to go mouldy. The landlord raised an order on 19 February 2024 to carry out a mould wash to the bathroom and the small bedroom. It is unclear why the landlord took a week to raise the order following the resident’s email and this was therefore a shortcoming on its part. It categorised the order as ‘urgent’ and carried out the work on 26 February 2024, which was a reasonable timescale after it had raised the order.
  16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 February 2024 and said that its Surveyor had not identified any damp or mould issues in either the small bedroom or the bathroom during the inspection on 27 November 2023. However, as the resident had now reported these issues, the landlord said it had made an appointment for an operative to attend on 1 March 2024 to check the roof above and around the small bedroom. This was reasonable so that the landlord could identify any water ingress into the small bedroom.
  17. In summary, we have found the following failings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
    1. The landlord did not inspect the property when the resident reported damp and mould throughout the property in August 2022.
    2. There was a gap of 7 weeks between the resident reporting damp in the kitchen and the small bedroom in October 2023 and the landlord inspecting the property on 27 November 2023. This was despite the resident notifying the landlord of health issues.
    3. The scheduling of the kitchen works in April 2024 did not, in our view, adequately take into account the health issues reported by the resident.
  18. In its stage 2 reply dated 9 February 2024, the landlord offered compensation of £100 for the delays in dealing with the reported damp and the other works to the kitchen. The landlord later increased this amount to £300 on 26 February 2024. The landlord’s Compensation Policy shows that the amount offered falls within the range of sums that can be awarded for cases where there has been considerable service failure. Given the failings we have identified, we agree that there was considerable service failure in this case. We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation to put things right in terms of these failings and our conclusion is that the offer was fair and proportionate in the circumstances to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  19. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress to reflect our view that the landlord made a fair and reasonable offer of redress to put things right.

The replacement of the kitchen sink

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 and said his kitchen sink needed to be replaced. The kitchen sink was inspected by the landlord’s Surveyor on 27 November 2023 and he raised an order on 4 December 2023 to renew the sink. As the resident had asked the landlord to renew the sink, it was reasonable for it to inspect the condition of the sink to decide whether it needed to be renewed.
  2. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 letter on 10 January 2024 that the kitchen sink would be renewed and it confirmed that this would be done as part of the programme of works due to begin on 15 April 2024. As has previously been stated, the appointment to start the works on 15 April 2024 was within the 90-working day target timescale for planned works. We have not seen any evidence to show that the kitchen sink was leaking or could not be used in the intervening period. Therefore, it was reasonable to include the renewal of the kitchen sink with the major works for the kitchen. This would help the landlord coordinate works in an efficient way and help to reduce the disruption for the resident.
  3. We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the kitchen sink needing to be replaced.

The resident’s reports of works needed to the loft, including renewal of the loft insulation and a hole in the party wall

  1. The landlord raised an order on 24 November 2022 to renew loft insulation at the property. The job was categorised as a routine job, to be completed within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s records show that it was completed on 24 April 2023, which was 5 months after the order was raised. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why there was such a delay. We have therefore concluded that the time taken to renew the loft insulation was unreasonable, particularly as the work had been identified earlier as part of disrepair works.
  2. The resident reported a hole in the party wall with the neighbouring property inside the loft area. The landlord raised an order on 19 January 2023 for a bricklayer to assess the hole. The landlord’s records show that the bricklayer attended on 9 February 2023 to assess the hole. The operative therefore attended within an appropriate timescale as the job had been raised as a routine, 20-working day order. However, there are no notes on the landlord’s system to show the outcome of the inspection. Also, there is no indication that the landlord arranged follow-on works or provided an update to the resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not arrange follow-on works or contact the resident to provide information on the outcome of the inspection. As a result of the landlord’s failure to update the resident, he phoned the landlord on 17 March 2023 to request an update regarding the job.
  3. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s phone call requesting an update regarding the hole. As a result, he wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 to say the work was still outstanding. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not followed up the resident’s further enquiry in March 2023 about the reported hole in the party wall or followed up the inspection carried out in February 2023 by the operative. The resident mentioned in his email of 12 October 2023 that fire officers had inspected the loft and identified the hole in the wall as a fire hazard. He was therefore concerned that it had not yet been addressed.
  4. The landlord raised an order on 6 December 2023 to brick up the hole in the wall inside the loft space. It was raised as a routine, 20-working day job. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 9 February 2024 that an operative attended on 5 February 2024 to assess the hole in the party wall and decided it would require 2 operatives to carry out the work. A further appointment had therefore been booked for 1 March 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not previously identified that the job required 2 operatives as it had previously inspected the hole. This caused further inconvenience for the resident.
  5. By the time of its letter on 26 February 2024, the landlord had not yet carried out the work to address the hole in the party wall. This was unreasonable because it had been over 4 months since the resident wrote to the landlord in October 2023 advising of the information he had received from the fire officers. It had also been over a year since the operative’s initial inspection on 9 February 2023.
  6. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the loft area:
    1. There was an unreasonable delay in renewing the loft insulation.
    2. The landlord failed to arrange follow-on works to address the hole in the party wall after inspecting it in February 2023.
    3. The landlord did not follow up the resident’s enquiry made in March 2023 regarding the hole in the wall.
    4. The resident was inconvenienced further because the landlord had not previously identified that the job needed 2 operatives and therefore the operative was unable to carry out the work on 5 February 2024.
    5. The overall time taken for the landlord to address the hole in the party wall was unreasonable.
  7. Although the landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 response that an appointment had been made to repair the hole, it did not acknowledge the delay in repairing the hole in the party wall, nor offer any redress to put things right. It also did not acknowledge the delay in renewing the loft insulation. We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the loft area. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to reflect the time and effort spent by the resident in chasing the landlord to carry out the repairs and to reflect his concerns about the potential fire safety implications regarding the hole.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the front and rear doors and frames

  1. The resident phoned the landlord on 7 September 2023 to say that operatives attended on 4 September 2023 to repair the step to the kitchen. However, as part of the repairs they removed and then reinstated the doorframe. The resident said that following this work, there was now a large gap down the side of the frame and it was no longer weatherproof.
  2. The landlord raised an order on 8 September 2023 to repair the kitchen door as it was not closing properly and daylight could be seen through the gap. The order was categorised as a routine, 20-working day job and the landlord arranged to attend 23 January 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord had raised a repair order the day after the resident’s phone call. However, in our view, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not booked an earlier appointment rather than one that was more than 4 months later. The resident had reported that in his view the doorframe was not weatherproof and therefore he was clearly concerned about the potential for water ingress.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 and included his concerns about the kitchen doorframe. Following contact with us, we contacted the landlord on 28 November 2023 and included the concerns about the kitchen door. It was unreasonable that the resident’s continued concerns about the doorframe were not used as an opportunity to bring forward the appointment that had been made for 23 January 2024.
  4. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 reply dated 10 January 2024 that it had attended the appointment on 23 January 2024 but had not been able to obtain access. It had therefore left a card. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 February 2024 and said that he had previously advised the landlord on 10 January 2024 that he would not be at home on 23 January 2024 as he had hospital appointments. We have reviewed the email referred to by the resident 10 January 2024 and can confirm that it stated he would be in hospital on 23 and 24 February rather than 23 and 24 January. This appears to have been a typing error by the resident. However, based on the information held by the landlord, it was reasonable for it to attend the appointment on 23 January 2024.
  5. The landlord rebooked the appointment to repair the doorframe on 16 February 2024, which was a reasonable timescale following the unsuccessful attendance on 23 January 2024. The landlord confirmed in its email dated 26 February 2024 that the operative attended on this day and adjusted the doorframe. The landlord said the operative did not identify any follow-up works.
  6. The resident had also reported issues with the front door. On 12 October 2023, he advised the landlord that his front door frame was loose. The landlord raised a job on 6 December 2023 to repair the loose front doorframe. It is unclear from the evidence why the landlord took almost 2 months to raise the order after the resident’s email of 12 October 2023. The delay was unreasonable.
  7. The order was categorised as a routine, 20-working day job and an appointment was booked for an operative to attend on 23 January 2024. Although the appointment date was outside of the 20-working day period, the timescale was not unreasonable as other repairs had been scheduled for the same day and this would therefore reduce disruption for the resident. As stated above, the resident was not at home due to a possible typing error in his email dated 10 January 2024 and therefore the contractor was unable to carry out the repair. It was reasonable for the landlord to have attended the appointment on 23 January 2024 as it was unaware that the resident had a hospital appointment on that day.
  8. As with the kitchen door, the landlord rebooked the appointment to repair the front doorframe on 16 February 2024, which was a reasonable timescale following the unsuccessful attendance on 23 January 2024. The landlord confirmed in its email dated 26 February 2024 that the operative attended on this day and adjusted the front doorframe. The landlord said the operative did not identify any follow-up works.
  9. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front and rear doorframes:
    1. The landlord scheduled the repair to the kitchen doorframe to take place more than 4 months after raising the order in September 2023, despite the resident reporting it was not weatherproof.
    2. Despite the resident contacting the landlord in October 2023 about his concerns regarding the doorframe, the landlord did not bring forward the appointment.
    3. The landlord took almost 2 months to raise an order to repair the front doorframe after the resident reported it was loose on 12 October 2023.

 

  1. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses, nor offer any redress to put things right. Therefore, given the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by these failings, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to put things right. This sum is consistent with the landlord’s Compensation Policy for instances where there has been service failure and is also in line with our own Remedies Guidance.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the upstairs windows and an external windowsill

  1. The landlord raised an order on 9 November 2022 to repair the kitchen window subsill which was said to be cracked. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 7 December 2022 and the order was marked as complete. The landlord therefore initially attended the job within a reasonable timescale. However, the resident phoned the landlord on 1 August 2023 to say that follow-on work was required. The landlord later confirmed that a new sill was required. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not been proactive in ordering the follow-on work. It had required the resident to ring the landlord to advise that follow-on works were needed to the sill.
  2. The landlord raised an order on 6 December 2023 to repair the broken windowsill and made an appointment for 23 January 2024. It is unclear why it had taken the landlord 4 months to raise the order after it had spoken to the resident on 1 August 2023 regarding the windowsill. The delay in raising the order was unreasonable.
  3. As stated previously, the contractor was unable to access the property on 23 January 2024 and was therefore unable to carry out the repair. It was reasonable for the landlord to have attended the appointment on 23 January 2024 as it was unaware that the resident had a hospital appointment. It raised a further order on 14 February 2024 for a new windowsill, which was reasonable as it had been unable to access the property.
  4. The resident also reported issues regarding the rubber gaskets on the upstairs windows. On 12 September 2023, the landlord raised an order to repair the seals (gaskets) to the upstairs windows, which were said to be loose. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 2 October 2023 and identified the need to replace the rubber gaskets on the upstairs windows. The landlord had attended the initial appointment within a reasonable timescale.
  5. The landlord raised a follow-on order on 2 October 2023 to replace the rubber gaskets on all of the upstairs windows. The follow-on order had therefore been raised on the same day as the inspection, which was reasonable. An appointment was booked to carry out the work on 23 January 2024 and the landlord confirmed this in its stage 1 reply dated 10 January 2024. The appointment was scheduled more than 3 months in advance and there is no explanation in the landlord’s records for this. This was inappropriate as the job was marked as routine and should have been completed within 20 working days according to the landlord’s policy.
  6. As stated above, the contractor was unable to access the property on 23 January 2024 and was therefore unable to carry out the repair. It was reasonable for the landlord to have attended the appointment on 23 January 2024 as it was unaware that the resident had a hospital appointment on this day.
  7. The landlord advised the resident on 9 February 2024 that it had made a new appointment for 8 March 2024 to replace the rubber gaskets. This was a reasonable timescale to carry out the work as the landlord had previously been unable to access the property.
  8. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the windowsill and the rubber gaskets:
    1. The landlord was not proactive in arranging follow-on works to the external windowsill after attending in December 2022.
    2. After speaking with the resident on 1 August 2023, it took the landlord 4 months to raise an order to regarding the windowsill.
    3. There was an unreasonable gap between the order being raised to replace the rubber gaskets and the appointment date for the work.
  9. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses, nor offer any redress to put things right. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to reflect the time, effort and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and for the time and effort in chasing the landlord. This sum is consistent with the landlord’s Compensation Policy for instances where there has been service failure and is also in line with our own Remedies Guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 3-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will first attempt to resolve the issue informally at stage 1. If that is not possible, a formal complaint will be opened at stage 2 and it will send an acknowledgement within 5 working days of receiving the complaint. The landlord aims to provide a response at stage 2 of the formal complaints process within 20 working days.
  2. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage 2 complaint response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The policy states that the escalation must be requested within 10 working days of receiving the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage 3 response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  3. We noted that at the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s Complaints Policy was not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord has since amended its policy so that it complies with the Code.
  4. Following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2022 and requested it to issue a written response to the resident’s complaint. The complaint was about outstanding repairs, including damp and mould and plaster falling off the walls. The landlord was asked to issue its response within 10 working days.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 September 2022 and confirmed it was investigating his complaint. The landlord then sent its stage 2 complaint response on 22 September 2022. Although the landlord had not responded within the 10-working day target requested by us, it had responded within 21 working days, which was broadly in line with its policy for stage 2 complaints. We have therefore not found a service failure in relation to the time taken by the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  6. Following further contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 23 December 2022 and asked it to send a stage 2 reply by 11 January 2023. The landlord sent its response on 10 January 2023 and therefore responded within an appropriate timescale after receiving our letter. However, as the landlord had already issued a stage 2 response on 22 September 2022 and the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the response, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 3. Although it was unsatisfactory that the landlord had issued another stage 2 reply, we have not identified this as a service failure because the landlord had complied with our request for it to issue a stage 2 reply.
  7. The resident contacted us again in November 2023 and we wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2023 and requested it to issue a complaint response to the resident by 28 December 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement to the resident on 5 December 2023, which was 5 working days after receiving our letter. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale. Furthermore, as it had been over 10 months since it had issued its last complaint response, it was, in our view, reasonable for the landlord to treat the matter as a new stage 1 complaint.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 10 January 2024, which was 23 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. This was longer than the timescale stipulated in its policy. However, the evidence shows that our initial notification letter asking the landlord to respond to the complaint did not include the required attachments with details of the complaint. We forwarded the attachments to the landlord on 7 December 2023. Therefore, taking this delay into account, we have concluded that the landlord replied to the complaint within the 20-working day timescale stated in its policy.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2024 and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said he had already received a stage 2 reply. The landlord acknowledged the complaint appropriately on 17 January 2024 and stated that the Chief Executive would be reviewing his complaint and would respond within 20 working days.
  10. The landlord sent its reply on 9 February 2024, which was 17 working days after acknowledging the complaint. It had therefore replied within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
  11. We have found that the landlord’s 3-stage complaints process caused confusion for the resident. For example, the landlord referred to its response dated 10 January 2024 as its stage 1 response, whereas under its policy it was sent as the second stage reply. Similarly, the landlord’s final response dated 9 February 2024 was referred to by the landlord as the stage 2 reply, whereas it was the third (and final) stage response under its policy. The landlord has now simplified its process and has a 2-stage complaints process, which is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
  12. Despite the confusion caused by the landlord’s complaints process, we have found that overall there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it complied with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the kitchen sink needing to be replaced.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of works needed to the loft, including renewal of the loft insulation and a hole in the party wall.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front and rear doors and frames.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the upstairs windows and an external windowsill.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident a total of £400 compensation comprised of:
      1. £200 in relation to its handling of the works needed in the loft area.
      2. £100 for its handling of the repairs to the front and rear doorframes.
      3. £100 for its handling of repairs to the windows and the external windowsill.
  2. The compensation we have ordered is in addition to any compensation previously offered by the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident any sums previously offered in relation to his reports of disrepair if these sums have not already been paid.