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 (202406847)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406847

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough 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:
    1. Planned bathroom repairs.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her 2 daughters.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 12 December 2022. The landlord carried out a desktop triage inspection and, as a result, arranged to inspect the loft insulation. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord inspected the property on 12 May 2023. It agreed to complete works to address the damp and mould. However, the resident continued to report damp and mould within her property.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 October 2024. She said she had been reporting damp and mould for over 12 months. She said the landlord had completed some work to the bedrooms but it had not resolved the issues, which were getting worse. The resident asked the landlord to move her and her family to a different property. The resident raised a further formal complaint on 24 January 2025. She said the landlord had not responded to her earlier complaint about the damp and mould. She also raised concerns about the delays in the completion of the planned bathroom works.
  1. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2025. It confirmed it completed the works to the bathroom on 30 January 2025 and it apologised for the delay. It said it had carried out multiple inspections, re-laid the loft insulation, carried out a mould wash, and installed a positive intake unit (PIV) to address the damp and mould. It said it had inspected the property again on 11 December 2024 and concluded that no further action was needed. It apologised for the delay in fitting the PIV.
  2. Following escalation of the complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2025.It set out the dates of the inspections and the remedial work it had completed to address the damp and mould. It said it had arranged to attend the resident’s property on 25 April 2025 to look at the bedroom walls and complete a repair in the kitchen. The landlord said it accepted the repairs carried out in October 2023 took longer than it had hoped and it offered the resident £80 compensation for the delays and miscommunication.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said she wanted the landlord to resolve the continuing damp and mould issues and acknowledge the overall delays.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
  3. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s handling of planned bathroom repairs. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that this sits outside of our jurisdiction. This is because the resident did not escalate this element of her complaint to stage 2 in her escalation request on 23 February 2025. Therefore, it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s insurers’ response to a liability claim she made for damage to personal belongings due to the damp and mould. The resident has told us that the landlord’s insurers refused her claim based on the outcome of one of the damp and mould reports. We are unable to investigate the insurers’ decision within this case. The resident would need to pursue any request for a reconsideration via the landlord’s insurance team.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord does not have a separate damp and mould policy. It manages reports of damp and mould through its repairs and maintenance policy. Before May 2024 it used its standard repairs timeframes when allocating the work. However, since then, the landlord has introduced specific timeframes for mould washes, damp inspections, and remedial work.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident reported damp and mould in the bedrooms in December 2022. The landlord completed a desktop triage inspection and raised a job to check the loft insulation in the property. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 December 2022. This was within the timeframe of 20 working days for routine repairs, set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. However, the resident was not at home, so the landlord left a calling card.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2023. She said she was waiting for a damp inspection and she mentioned the missed appointment in December 2022. She asked the landlord to re-book the appointment.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 April 2023 to inform her that it had booked her new appointment in for 23 May 2023. This was not appropriate. The appointment was over 2 months from the date of the resident’s contact in March 2023 and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy for routine repairs.
  5. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 11 April 2023 to complete a damp and mould inspection. It is unclear from the evidence provided how much notice it had given the resident of the appointment as the inspector arrived as the resident was leaving for work. The resident asked the landlord to re-arrange the date.
  6. The landlord completed the damp and mould inspection on 12 May 2023. The inspector recommended the landlord renew the extractor fan in the bathroom, carry out some pointing works, and insulate the t-falls in the bedroom (sloped area where the wall meets the ceiling). He also identified that the property may benefit from the installation of a positive input ventilation unit (PIV).
  7. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 23 May 2023 to complete the work in the loft. However, as the resident was not at home, the landlord left a calling card.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023. She asked the landlord to carry out a further damp and mould inspection. She contacted the landlord again on 8 July 2023 to chase the loft inspection. She told the landlord the situation was affecting her mental health. She said both her and her daughter were feeling unwell. She said they had moved the drawers away from the external wall but were still rewashing their clothes due to the damp smell. The landlord rearranged the loft inspection appointment to 10 August 2023.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2023. She said nobody attended the loft inspection appointment on 10 August 2023. She also said she was still waiting for a damp inspection. The landlord responded the following day. It said its operative had attended on 10 August 2023 at 3:30pm but there was no answer. The resident disputed this as her daughter had been at home all day. She asked the landlord to reschedule the work for week beginning 18 September 2023 as she was off work.
  10. The resident received a text message from the landlord on 31 August 2023 telling her the repairs team were on their way. It was not clear to the resident whether the appointment was for the loft inspection or the damp and mould inspection. However, she told the landlord it had not confirmed any appointments with her, so she asked it to reschedule for the week of 18 October 2023 as she was off work. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this was an error, as the resident had previously told the landlord she would be off work in September 2023.
  11. The landlord completed a further damp and mould inspection on 3 November 2023. The landlord’s records show that the surveyor identified and recommended the same remedial works as the first surveyor. The landlord has told us, at that time, it did not produce full survey reports. It said it only recorded the recommendations made at the time of the survey.
  12. That aside, this shows that the landlord had not yet completed any of the works identified from the survey in May 2023. This was inappropriate as it had been almost 6 months from the date of the survey. It is unclear from the evidence provided what priority the landlord had given the repairs. However, this was outside of the timeframe for both routine repairs and planned repairs set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
  13. The landlord completed the recommended works, apart from the installation of the PIV, between 12 February 2024 and 20 February 2024. This was 9 months from the date of the first survey. The landlord has said the work was delayed because it had to carry out an asbestos survey before the work could start. Although it is understandable that the need for an asbestos survey may cause some delays, it does not provide a reasonable explanation for a 9 month delay, particularly when the resident was reporting damp and mould and she was pregnant at the time.
  14. The resident reported further concerns relating to damp and mould in April 2024. The landlord raised a job to inspect the roof on 8 May 2024.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 May 2024 as she had taken time off work and the landlord had not attended. The landlord apologised and rebooked the appointment for 8am on 10 May 2024. The roofer did not attend at the agreed time, and the resident was not able to wait. However, the landlord inspected the roof and loft space on 21 May 2024 and found no issues.
  16. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 10 June 2024 following further reports from the resident of black mould on the front bedroom ceiling and internal wall. The surveyor said the landlord needed to check the loft insulation. It is unclear from the evidence provided why this work was still outstanding. The landlord had accessed and carried out work to the resident’s property on multiple occasions since the last failed appointment to check the loft on 23 May 2023.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2024. She said the damp and mould was getting worse and it was damaging items of clothing and other personal items. She told the landlord her baby had been born prematurely and she was concerned about bringing the baby into a mouldy environment. She said she was also concerned about the ongoing health risks to herself and her older daughter.
  18. The landlord responded on 2 July 2024 and said the job to inspect the loft was with its scheduling team and it would book the work in as soon as it could. The resident said the landlord had already dealt with the loft insulation and she believed there was a more complex issue causing the damp and mould. However, the landlord insisted the recommended work had to be done. It completed the loft inspection and related work on 29 August 2024. This was inappropriate, as it was over 2 months from the date of the inspection (10 June 2024) and outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy for routine repairs.
  19. The landlord completed a habitability assessment on 4 September 2024. The records show it found the property to be in a habitable condition. It found a small spot of mould and it arranged to carry out a mould wash. It also recommended the installation of the PIV unit as an improvement.
  20. The landlord completed the mould wash on 25 September 2024. However, this was outside of the 3 working days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
  21. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 October 2024. She said, despite the work that had been completed, the front bedroom was still very damp and her daughter’s possessions were still being damaged by the mould. The resident said the landlord said it would install a PIV unit but it had not completed the work. The resident said the property was not suitable for a premature baby and she asked the landlord to rehouse her. She said the situation was causing her and her eldest daughter anxiety, depression, and embarrassment.
  22. The landlord responded on or around 29 October 2024. However, it did not log a formal complaint. It apologised and raised a request for the installation of a PIV. It said all damp works were showing as complete. It raised a job for a further damp inspection on 5 November 2024 and completed the inspection on 18 November 2024. This was within the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The landlord’s records show it found no mould in the property during the inspection.
  23. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord again on 9 December 2024. It completed an inspection, within the expected timeframe, on 11 December 2024. The landlord has provided a copy of a full inspection report. The surveyor found no visible mould growth on the walls and ceilings. Although he found a small section of damp in the kitchen behind a skirting board as the plaster was bridging the floor. He recommended the landlord install a PIV, create a bridging gap, renew the skirting board, and fill a hairline crack in the render above the living room window with resin. However, the report made it clear that the surveyor did not think the crack was causing any internal defects.
  24. The report also recommended the resident remove all furniture from the external walls, remove furniture and clothing from radiators, use the heating to prevent the temperature dropping below 18 degrees, and use the kitchen extractor fan.
  25. The landlord installed the PIV unit on 16 January 2025. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 January 2025. She said the landlord had not responded to the complaint she had raised in October 2024.
  26. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 7 February 2025. It said the resident had first reported damp and mould in December 2023. It listed the dates of inspections and the work it had completed since that date. It apologised for the delay in fitting the PIV and said it was due to a high demand for the units. It concluded, following the inspection on 11 December 2024, no further action was needed.
  27. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2025. She said she disputed the findings in the landlord’s inspection report. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 February 2025.
  28. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2025. It said the resident had first reported damp and mould on 3 March 2023. It again listed the dates of inspections and works it had completed. It confirmed it would carry out the work to create the bridging gap in the kitchen and a further damp and mould inspection on 25 April 2025. It said there had been some discrepancies in the timeline given in the stage 1 response. It said, although it had carried out work to resolve the damp and mould, it accepted that the repairs in October 2023 took longer than it hoped. It offered the resident £80 compensation for the delay and miscommunication.
  29. The landlord completed the damp inspection on 7 May 2025, following a request to delay the appointment by the resident. It found the property to be habitable. It found minor mould growth on the corner of the t-fall ceiling in one of the bedrooms and damp in the hallway behind the radiator due to bridging within the cavity wall. It recommended a minor mould wash and work to resolve the damp behind the radiator. It booked the mould wash in for 28 May 2025. However, the records show the landlord had not completed the work to create the bridging gap in the kitchen.
  30. Within the stage 2 response the landlord did recognise some delays in carrying out the damp and mould works. However, it only referred to delays in October 2023. It did not make any reference to the delays in arranging the loft inspection, damp inspections, mould washes, or the overall delays in completing the remedial works in February 2024. It also did not acknowledge the effect of the delays on the resident and her family.
  31. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that there were some failings in the way it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it has not shown it has recognised all the failings, as set out above. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and on that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. Therefore, we consider the offer of £80 insufficient to reflect the resident’s circumstances and the effect of the landlord’s failings.
  32. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer of £80) to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord made an offer of compensation which is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This is also in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance for cases where there has been “considerable service failure, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. We have also made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident in the circumstances and further orders in relation to the resolution of the damp and mould.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation.
  2. The resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 October 2024. However, the landlord did not formally log the complaint. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says at paragraph 6.2 “complaints must be acknowledged, defined and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within five working days of the complaint being received.”
  3. The resident raised a further formal complaint on 24 January 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 23 February 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2025. This was 25 days from the date of escalation and just outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay within the stage 2 response.
  5. Although the stage 2 delay from the date of escalation was a minor failure, the overall delay from the resident first making her complaint in October 2024 to the date of the stage 2 response was 5 months. This overall delay caused the resident avoidable time and trouble and delayed her from escalating her complaint to us. As such, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.
  6. To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £100 for the failings in its complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge and made no attempt to put right. An order to this effect has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of planned bathroom repairs, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £550 (the landlord may deduct from this amount any compensation payment it has already made) made up of:
      1. £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
      2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble likely caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to carry out a full damp and mould survey of the property.
    5. Within 2 weeks of the survey the landlord must:
      1. Provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
      2. The report must include details of the likely cause of any unresolved damp and mould, and any necessary works to resolve the issues.
      3. Within 4 weeks of the date of the surveyor’s report the landlord must begin any identified works. If it is unable to meet this deadline the landlord must notify both the resident and us, providing a clear explanation for the delay.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.