Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

South Tyneside Council (202342147)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342147

South Tyneside Council

29 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cold, damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a longstanding tenant of the landlord. She told us she has a secure tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of her tenancy agreement. The resident moved to the property around June 2021. The property is a “Dutch [style] bungalow”. It has 1 bedroom which is located in a large upstairs loft space. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health. She told us she has an unstable emotional personality disorder and change affects her.
  2. The resident has reported cold, damp and mould issues to the landlord. The earliest report of cold was made in November 2021. The resident’s initial report related to the property’s windows. The landlord completed some repairs and improvements over the years. It added some additional insulation and later replaced the property’s boiler and windows through cyclical major works programmes. The resident subsequently complained to the landlord that the issues were still ongoing.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 November 2023. She said cold, damp and mould had been ongoing for 2 years and were damaging her belongings. The landlord inspected the property. It then issued a stage 1 response in December 2023. It said it was trying to secure external funding to improve the property’s insulation. It also said it would address various repair issues in the meantime.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint in January 2024. Interview notes show she wanted insulation to be fitted and “holes to be filled throughout the property”. They also show the resident raised some other concerns regarding her bathroom. She said a bi-fold door was outstanding and the bathroom was “extremely small”. Subsequently, the resident reported her carpets had been ruined by brick dust and her clothes were wet and mouldy. She said “it’s horrible living like this”.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 February 2024. It said it was still trying to access external funding for improvements. However, several repairs had been completed and other works were already scheduled. It awarded the resident £105 in compensation for delays, distress and inconvenience. The response said the bathroom was not part of the resident’s initial complaint. However, an inspection had been raised to assess the situation.
  6. The resident remained unhappy following the landlord’s stage 2 response. She told the Ombudsman she wants the landlord to address her damaged items, award additional compensation, install a bi-folding bathroom door, and resolve the property’s insulation issues. She also said she was frequently burned by a radiator in the bathroom. She felt the landlord should rearrange the bathroom to prevent any further burns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
  2. In line with the Ombudsman’s remit, this assessment focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. It is noted the resident raised some other concerns about her bathroom during the landlord’s investigation at stage 2. The landlord did not address these concerns formally in its final response. Since we lacked sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment, the resident’s other concerns were beyond the scope of our investigation. We have considered the landlord’s related complaint handling in the relevant section below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cold, damp and mould

  1. The resident raised related concerns within months of moving to the property. On 15 October 2021 she called the landlord to report some window repairs. She also requested larger radiators. Subsequent records show the landlord completed sealing works to the windows on 8 November 2021. Based on the period between these dates, it took the landlord around 16 working days to repair the windows. The landlord’s repairs policy shows it should complete routine repairs within 20 working days. This confirms the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial request for window repairs. However, there was no indication it engaged with her related request for larger radiators. If the landlord was unable or unwilling to replace the radiators, it should have informed the resident of this and explained why.
  2. The resident called the landlord again on 11 November 2021. Contact notes said the property was cold, sealing the windows had not made a difference, and “[the] windows are that old it won’t change”. It was unclear if these comments were made by the resident or the landlord. The notes said the landlord would arrange an inspection to check if new windows should be installed during one of its cyclical works programmes. They also said the landlord would check the property’s insulation during this inspection. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord in the circumstances.
  3. A surveyor inspected the property on 29 November 2021. Inspection notes said there was no insulation to the roof and a draught was entering the bedroom through a cupboard. They also referenced some missing roof tiles. The notes did not mention the property’s windows or radiators. A subsequent contact record, from 9 December 2021, said no issues had been identified with the windows (presumably during the surveyor’s inspection). Repair records show the landlord added insulated plasterboards to rafters inside the bedroom cupboard on 10 January 2022. The roof tiles were repaired on 19 January 2022.
  4. Respectively, these works were completed around 27 and 34 working days after the landlord’s inspection. The evidence shows the insulated boards were improvement works rather than repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy shows the landlord should complete planned (non-standard) works within 3 months. Due to the draught in the bedroom, it was reasonable for the landlord to expedite the improvement works. However, it failed to repair the roof tiles within its applicable timescale. The corresponding delay of around 14 working days was inappropriate in the circumstances. Subsequent events suggest the landlord should have adopted a more systematic approach at this point.
  5. On 1 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. She reported the property’s windows were still draughty despite the previous repairs. Call records show she asked “if anything else can be done”. There was no indication the landlord visited the property or completed any repairs at this point. From a risk monitoring perspective, it should have completed an additional inspection to assess the problem. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord missed an opportunity to improve the resident’s situation at this point. Its failure to engage with the resident’s report was unfair and inappropriate.
  6. It is noted the landlord outlined that the damp issues were first raised in September 2022. On 4 October 2022 the resident reported there was damp on an internal wall above the sitting room. Repair records show the landlord repaired a crack above the living room window on 11 November 2022. This was around 28 working days later. The records also show the works were a non-standard repair. The evidence shows the landlord responded in line with its applicable timescale. Its response time was also reasonable given the repair issue that had been reported (damp).
  7. Repair records show the landlord completed a window inspection on 20 January 2023. It is unclear what prompted this inspection and the landlord did not provide a copy of the findings. Two days later, it raised a repair order for planned works. The repair notes said insulation should be pushed into the property’s eaves (roof space). This indicates the landlord accepted the existing insulation was inadequate, this is further supported by the fact that the landlord has confirmed that the property is hard to treat and has large areas of the walls / ceiling that were uninsulated due to the property archetype. The order was raised around 11 months after the resident asked the landlord if it could do anything more to address the cold. The delay was both unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord attended the property on 14 March 2023 to complete the planned insulation works. Contact records show the resident called the landlord on the same day. Call notes said the landlord would “discuss an alternative method to carry out the work”. Based on these notes, it was unclear if the landlord’s insulation works were successful. In any case, it was reasonable for the landlord to try a different type of repair/approach in order to resolve the issue. However, the lack of clarity shows the landlord’s record keeping could have been better at this point.
  9. On 17 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for new windows. Call records show she had been told the windows would be replaced during a cyclical works programme (possibly during the previous window inspection). The parties discussed the property’s insulation on the following day. The resident reported the roof was visible through the cupboard in the bedroom (she felt the area should be insulated). Around the same time, the landlord raised a repair order to treat mould around a bedroom window following the resident’s reports of mould in the property. Records show the works were completed in line with the landlord’s applicable timescale. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  10. Repair records show the landlord attempted to improve the property’s insulation again on 8 June 2023. Repair notes said insulation should be re-laid in the loft and added to the loft hatch. The notes show the landlord was subsequently unable to access the loft area. Around the same time, a separate repair order was raised to overboard the sloped bedroom ceiling with insulated plaster. This was further evidence that the landlord was willing to try different approaches. The plastering order was subsequently cancelled. The evidence shows the resident cancelled the works because they were expected to take several days. This was confirmed by2call records from 26 June 2023.
  11. In late August 2023, the landlord told the resident new windows and doors would be installed in October 2023 (through its cyclical works programme). The evidence shows the landlord had already replaced the property’s boiler by this time. These works show the landlord was investing funds to improve the property. Around the same time, the resident told the landlord she was withholding rent due to the insulation issues. This shows she felt the situation was unfair.
  12. In October 2023 the landlord raised an inspection order following contact from the resident. Corresponding notes said plaster was cracked in various rooms and the property was cold. The records show the inspection was completed around 9 November 2023. The landlord did not provide a copy of the inspection report.
  13. On 30 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord via email. She said “damp, cold and mould… [was] ruining everything [she] owned” and the situation had been ongoing for more than 2 years. She also said there was only 1 radiator in the bedroom and the bedroom window was “constantly soaking wet”. Her email included several images. They appeared to show mould on a hat and a canvas print. Subsequently, the landlord inspected the property again during its complaint investigation. It relayed its findings during internal correspondence on 13 December 2023. Some key points were:
    1. There was no insulation to the bedroom walls and ceiling.
    2. The bedroom radiator should be resized or relocated due to “poor heat distribution”.
    3. Engineers should balance the heating system and consider installing a new radiator at the top of the stairs.
    4. A specialist ventilation system should be installed to address condensation issues throughout the property.
  14. There was no reference to damp or mould in the landlord’s inspection findings (it is noted the landlord outlined that it inspected this issue but did not find evidence of damp and mould so it did not include this in its findings). However, the findings show several significant issues were identified. These issues could reasonably be expected to have influenced the temperature and conditions within the property. There was no indication the landlord had investigated the adequacy of the property’s radiators before this point. The resident had asked for larger radiators in October 2021. This was around 26 months before the December 2023 inspection took place. This delay points to a lack of thoroughness and/or engagement on the landlord’s part. The situation was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances.
  15. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. It said the landlord was looking to secure government funding to improve the property’s energy efficiency. In addition, it would update the resident about the funding in due course. The response also said the landlord would complete various works and repairs in the meantime, and it would consider installing an additional radiator. The landlord did not address its handling of the cold, damp or mould issues. As a result, it did not attempt to identify any failures or offer redress to the resident. Given the content of the resident’s complaint (which referenced lengthy delays), this was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
  16. The resident escalated her complaint in January 2024. Interview notes from 16 January 2024 show she felt her energy bills were excessive due to the lack of insulation. They also show she was worried about the cost of running the specialist ventilation unit the landlord wanted to install. The notes show she reported there were “loads of holes throughout the property” and the walls were wet and crumbling. Several days later, the landlord agreed to install an additional radiator in the bedroom. This was a reasonable step in the circumstances.
  17. On 2 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that the wind and draught in the bedroom was “horrendous” and she sometimes slept downstairs. She also said there was mould on the property’s new windows, her carpets were damaged by brick dust, and her clothes were damp and mouldy. These comments were broadly consistent with the information the resident had provided in her complaint to the landlord. Overall, the evidence shows she was unable to fully enjoy her home due to the unresolved cold, damp and mould issues. Subsequent events suggest the loss of enjoyment is ongoing to date.
  18. Contact records from 5 February 2024 show the landlord was unable to complete a plastering repair because the underlying brickwork was damp and plaster would not stick to the wall. From the evidence provided, it was unclear if the works arose from the inspection that took place around 13 December 2023. Call notes said the resident could see daylight through the wall, a draught was entering the property, and falling plaster had damaged her carpets. Repair records show the landlord attended an emergency repair appointment on the same day. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s report.
  19. Around the same time, the landlord completed a number of repairs that were highlighted by its previous inspection. They included works to seal a double glazing unit to prevent water ingress. Repair records show the repairs were delayed by around 1 month (the records said they should have been completed by 12 January 2024). The delays were inappropriate given the landlord’s policy timescales and the property’s condition. Its condition was indicated by the overall scope of the landlord’s recommended repair works. The landlord’s inspection in December 2023 had identified 8 separate repair issues. They included a lack of insulation, inadequate heating, and inadequate ventilation.
  20. On 7 February 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said the landlord was still trying to secure external funding to improve the property’s insulation. However, a number of repairs had been completed and the remaining works were scheduled. The response rightly addressed the resident’s concerns about the cost of running the specialist ventilation unit. The landlord awarded the resident £105 in compensation for (unspecified) delays, distress and inconvenience. It did not explain its rationale. The timing indicates its compensation award related to the repairs that should have been completed in January 2024. Ultimately, the amount of compensation the landlord awarded was disproportionately low given its delays and failures from October 2021 onwards.
  21. Subsequently, the resident raised concerns about the quality of some completed repairs. She also referenced a missed roofing appointment. Repair records show 2 consecutive repair orders were raised to repair the property’s roof tiles. This supports the resident’s assertion an appointment was missed. There was no indication the landlord compensated the resident for the missed appointment. Other records show an additional radiator was installed in the property’s bedroom on 22 February 2024. There was no evidence of any unreasonable delays in respect of the installation. This is because an engineer’s assessment was required beforehand. The assessment took place in January 2024.
  22. Records show the landlord inspected the property’s external brickwork in early March 2024 (following the falling plaster issue). The landlord did not provide a copy of the inspection findings. Contact records show the parties began to discuss a temporary decant around the same time. It is understood based on the information submitted by the landlord that the decant was due to full house retrofit works that was being undertaken in the property.
  23. The resident updated the Ombudsman in September 2024. She said the landlord was arranging extensive works to the bedroom and she would be temporarily moved to facilitate them. It was understood the works included thermal plastering. The resident told us she had installed the property’s carpets and they cost her around £3,000. She said the landlord cleaned the carpets in February 2024 but they were still stained with brick dust afterwards. She also said the landlord had never attempted to address her other damaged items.
  24. Where a resident feels a landlord is responsible for injury or damage to their personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. Alternatively, the landlord can address damaged items through its own internal complaints procedure. This approach is typically unsuitable for high value goods or a large quantity of items. Although it cleaned the carpet, there was no evidence the landlord adopted either approach in this case. This was a significant procedural failure on the landlord’s part.
  25. Based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence points to a related delay of around 10 months. This was based on the period from 30 November 2023 (when the resident first raised concerns about damage) to date. The evidence shows the resident raised the matter on multiple occasions during this period. It is likely this was distressing and inconvenient for her. The situation was unfair and inappropriate.
  26. In summary, the landlord completed some limited repairs during the early part of the timeline. They included sealing works to the windows and the installation of insulated plasterboards inside a bedroom cupboard. It was noted the landlord was aware there was no insulation to the property’s roof at this point. Following the resident’s later complaint, the landlord accepted the property needed extensive works to address a lack of insulation, inadequate heating, and inadequate ventilation (among other issues). A significant disparity was noted between the landlord’s limited initial approach and the systematic approach it adopted after the resident complained. It should not have taken a complaint to prompt a comprehensive response from the landlord.
  27. The resident raised concerns around cold issues consistently from November 2021 onwards, damp and mould issues were also brought to the landlord’s attention at a later date as detailed above. It is reasonable to conclude that, for long periods, she felt the landlord was not listening or it was not treating her reports with sufficient seriousness. It is also reasonable to conclude that she now feels vindicated due to the extensive works the landlord has more recently agreed. Ultimately, the evidence shows there was a series of significant delays and failures by the landlord. It also shows they resulted in a prolonged impact to the resident. This impact included a loss of enjoyment on the resident’s part. Due to a lack of engagement and thoroughness, the landlord missed opportunities to improve her situation.
  28. While it awarded some compensation subsequently, the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its failures. As a result, its compensation award was disproportionate given what went wrong. In addition, repairs were delayed and the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns around damaged items. This was a significant procedural failure on the landlord’s part. Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This finding was based on several factors. It reflects the landlord’s accumulated failures, the duration and severity of the reported cold issues, and the impact to the resident.
  29. Given the above, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and is consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. In line with our approach to compensation, the calculation includes separate elements to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of enjoyment aspect is based on the principle that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent given her reduced enjoyment of the property.
  30. The loss of enjoyment calculation is not a rent refund. It is based on a flat rate of £50 compensation per month during the autumn/winter months. This is a tailored approach that reflects the individual circumstances of the resident’s case. It is also considered proportionate because it is reasonable to conclude the cold, damp and mould issues were more prevalent during the colder months of the year. Our calculation covers the cold months from November 2021 to date (there were 12 cold months during this period).

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 November 2023. She said cold, damp and mould issues had been ongoing for over 2 years. She also said she had raised this topic with the landlord during an inspection that took place earlier that month. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. This was 9 working days later. The response did not attempt to establish a timeline of the cold, damp and mould issues. It did not refer to the landlord’s recent inspection or include a clear decision or rationale.
  2. The Ombudsman sourced a copy of the landlord’s relevant complaints policy (revised September 2022) online. It shows the landlord should have responded to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. This confirms the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within an appropriate timescale. The applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”.
  3. Section 5.8 said a stage 1 response should include the landlord’s decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions. Since it failed to include this key information, the landlord’s response was contrary to the Code. The evidence shows the landlord failed to engage with a number of the resident’s key complaint points. This was unfair and it amounted to a lack of thoroughness. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at this point. The landlord’s stage 1 response was inappropriate given the Code’s requirements.
  4. Contact records show the landlord escalated the complaint following a call with the resident on 4 January 2024. Following this, the parties discussed the resident’s complaint on 16 January 2024. The landlord’s interview notes show the resident was mainly concerned about a lack of insulation. They also show she raised some other concerns at this point. They included the installation of a bathroom door that the resident said had been outstanding for around 2 years. The resident also referenced a lack of space in the bathroom.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 February 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it must provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. When considering the timescale, it is this Service’s view that the landlord provided a response within the appropriate timescale.
  6. In relation to the resident’s core complaint, the landlord said it had not met its required service standards. It apologised and awarded some compensation. It did not detail any specific failures or the rationale behind its compensation calculation. The response did not confirm the complaint outcome. Complaint records show the complaint was “partially upheld”. Overall, the response was inappropriate and contrary to the Code. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of clarity made it difficult for the resident to evaluate the landlord’s decision. This was unfair.
  7. The response engaged with the resident’s other concerns from 16 January 2024. The landlord said these concerns were not part of the resident’s initial complaint. However, it confirmed it had arranged an inspection to assess the property’s bathroom. It was reasonable for the landlord to engage with the resident’s additional concerns. However, the evidence shows the resident felt there had been a significant failure by the landlord. This is because she had previously said that a bifold door installation was outstanding for around 2 years.
  8. Since her comments referred to a lack of action by the landlord, it was reasonably clear that they amounted to a complaint (even if the resident did not use the word “complaint”). If the landlord was unsure, it could have asked the resident how she wanted to proceed. Ultimately, the landlord should have addressed her additional concerns through its internal complaints process (ICP). It should have either addressed the resident’s other concerns formally as part of its stage 2 response, or logged a new stage 1 complaint. Logging a new complaint would have allowed the landlord to subject the resident’s other concerns to both stages of its ICP.
  9. Addressing her additional concerns through its ICP would have allowed the landlord to complete a full investigation, provide redress to the resident if necessary, and take steps to learn from any failures that were identified. In contrast, the evidence shows the resident’s concerns have not been fully addressed to date. Based on the timing of this assessment, there was an unreasonable delay of around 8 months. The evidence shows the landlord’s approach was unfair to the resident. It also shows the landlord’s approach was inappropriate.
  10. In summary, there was a lack of thoroughness in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Its stage 1 response did not fully engage with the resident’s complaint points. Both of the landlord’s responses lacked clarity. They were also inappropriate and contrary to the Code. The landlord failed to address the resident’s additional concerns through its ICP. This was unfair and resulted in an unreasonable delay of around 8 months. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cold, damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,900 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her reports of cold, damp and mould. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord is free to deduct the £105 which it previously awarded her at stage 2.
    2. £600 for her related loss of enjoyment of the property (£50 x12 cold months from November 2021 to date).
    3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord to contact the resident to gather information about any damaged personal items (including carpets). This is with a view to refunding her accordingly. Since it failed to follow the correct procedure within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord should avoid any onerous evidence requirements in relation to the damages. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord to raise a new complaint to address the resident’s concerns about the property’s bathroom. It may need to contact the resident to clarify the complaint details. As part of its complaint investigation, the landlord should assess the bathroom radiator to address the resident’s safety concerns about burns. It should do this as soon as possible. Within 4 weeks, it should provide its new complaint reference number to the Ombudsman.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord should present its findings to its senior leadership/executive team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The landlord should also cascade its improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The review should include:
    1. The steps the landlord will take to ensure it adopts a thorough/holistic approach to reports of cold, damp and mould. This is because the landlord missed a number of opportunities to improve the resident’s situation in this case.
    2. The steps the landlord will take to ensure its staff can handle claims around damage/injury/liability accordingly. This is because the landlord failed to address the resident’s related concerns on multiple occasions in this case.
    3. The steps the landlord will take to ensure it learns from the complaint handling issues that were identified in this case. This is because its responses lacked clarity and thoroughness.