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.

South Tyneside Council (202424803)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424803

South Tyneside Council

18 September 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 damp and mould at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property was a 2-bedroom flat. The resident moved out of the property on 12 November 2023.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 October 2022 to report damp and mould in the back bedroom which she believed was caused by defective brickwork. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 16 November 2022 and raised internal repairs. The landlord completed plastering repairs on 13 December 2022.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 19 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 and said the plaster was still wet. 5 days later the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord and said the resident had reported the “mould has come back.”
  4. The evidence suggests a surveyor visited the property in January 2023 after the resident requested an inspection. The surveyor noted:
    1. A condensation issue.
    2. A tumble drier running in the hall and the need for correct ventilation.
    3. A Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit and bathroom fan upgrade would assist with the condensation issue.
    4. He discussed with the resident ways she could improve ventilation and airflow in the property.
  5. The landlord completed another survey on 14 March 2023. A repair was raised shortly afterwards to upgrade the bathroom extractor fan, which was completed on 20 April 2023. 5 days later the resident’s MP contacted the landlord in relation to “ongoing damp and mould issues.”
  6. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 3 May 2023 to inspect the property. The surveyor:
    1. Said the bedroom wall was dry and there were no issues.
    2. Noted a PIV unit had been installed 2 weeks earlier.
    3. Raised a work order for bedroom skirting repairs the next day.
  7. After the landlord installed a wet room in June 2023, its surveyor visited on 28 June 2023. The surveyor:
    1. Noted mould in the bedroom.
    2. Emailed the contractor that installed the PIV unit the day after his visit and said:
      1. “The resident had complained about the PIV unit noise and rate it was blowing out.
      2. The bedroom suffered from mould.”

The contractor addressed the PIV unit noise issue on 20 September 2023.

  1. The landlord raised another damp inspection on 28 September 2023. A surveyor visited on 12 October 2023 and raised repairs on 2 November 2023 to:
    1. Fit trickle vents to 2 bedrooms (which was marked as cancelled).
    2. Fit skirting board to the bedroom (which was marked as cancelled).
    3. Clean and flush the guttering (which was completed on 2 January 2024).
  2. The resident moved out on 12 November 2023 but raised a formal complaint on 18 January 2024. She said:
    1. “She was in her last property for a year in damp and mould while attempts were made to fix the problem.
    2. She had lost personal items that were damaged by mould.”
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 February 2024, in which it said:
    1. A surveyor visited in January 2023 and noted:
      1. Condensation to the wall.
      2. A tumble drier running in the hallway which should be correctly ventilated.
      3. A lot of belongings in the bedroom which should be stored correctly.
      4. A PIV unit and bathroom fan upgrade would assist with the condensation issue.
    2. A second surveyor visited on 14 March 2023 and identified the same condensation issues.
    3. The area surveyor attended on 3 May 2023 and said there were no issues observed and the PIV installation and fan upgrade had addressed the mould.
    4. Its contractor had fixed the PIV noise issue.
    5. Neither the area surveyor or specialist mould contractor had indicated they had observed mould at any point during investigation and work.
  4. The landlord received notification the resident wished to escalate the complaint through her MP on 13 February 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 30 April 2024, where it upheld the complaint. It said:
    1. It had conducted a number of surveys following reports of damp and mould. No surveyor had found damp, although there was moisture which had formed as condensation. A meeting was held where the area surveyor confirmed the issues had been caused by condensation.
    2. It had installed a PIV unit, upgraded the bathroom extractor fan and fitted window vents.
    3. The resident could submit an insurance claim for her damaged belongings and it would contact her to discuss this.
    4. Its contractor had taken 3 months to respond to the request to adjust the PIV unit. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation for the delay and inconvenience.
    5. It surveyed the property using specialist equipment after the resident moved out but did not find any signs of damp.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord visited the resident on 9 May 2024 to discuss the insurance claim. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2024 and said the claim was declined as there was no structural damage to her previous property and the mould damage was caused by condensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident is seeking compensation for damage caused to personal items. It is beyond our remit to determine liability for damaged belongings. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The resident also told us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health. We empathise with her situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
    1. It is responsible for repairs to outside and internal walls.
    2. Some repairs will need to be checked by a surveyor to assess the scope of the works.
    3. Routine repairs will be completed in 20 working days.
    4. Planned repairs can take up to 3 months.
  2. The evidence showed the landlord’s surveyor attended a week after the resident reported damp and mould, but the notes showed there was no access. In line with the landlord’s policy, it rescheduled the inspection for 16 November 2022 after further contact from the resident. A copy of the surveyor’s report has not been provided to us, but the repair log showed repairs raised a week after the visit, which was reasonable. Repairs to the plaster and bedroom wall were completed a month later, in line with the landlord’s planned repairs timeframe.
  3. The resident reported the plaster was “still wet” 6 days after the repair had been completed. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord took any action, which caused the resident inconvenience having to chase for an update on 4 January 2023. In response, the landlord requested another inspection, which was reasonable. It was unclear exactly when the surveyor attended, and again a copy of the survey was not provided to us. However, the surveyor said there was a condensation issue. It was reasonable for the surveyor to give advice to address condensation. The landlord is entitled to act on the expert advice of suitably qualified staff. In the absence of expert evidence to contradict the surveyor’s opinion, we cannot say there was a failing.
  4. The repair log showed another survey raised on 21 February 2023. The surveyor attended on 14 March 2023, 15 working days later, in line with policy. This time a routine repair was raised to upgrade the bathroom extractor fan which was completed on 20 April 2023, 1 day over the landlord’s timeframe. It was unclear exactly when the PIV unit was installed, however the evidence suggests this was done around the same time, if not the same day, which was reasonable.
  5. The resident requested another inspection on 2 May 2023. The surveyor attended the next day and noted no issues and the bedroom wall was dry. Again, the landlord was entitled to act on the expert advice of suitably qualified staff. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to take any further action.
  6. The resident reported damp again on 26 June 2023. The surveyor attended promptly 2 days later. An internal email sent to the contractor the next day showed the surveyor noted mould in the bedroom. It was reasonable for the surveyor to ask the contractor that installed the PIV to address the noise issue. The contractor acknowledged the email the next day, but there was no evidence of any further action until 13 September 2023 when the landlord noted the issue was “awaiting a response.” The PIV was adjusted a week later, which was almost 3 months after the repair was requested by the surveyor. This was an unreasonable delay.
  7. The evidence showed the landlord sent surveyors promptly on at least 4 occasions between November 2022 and June 2023. This was positive and showed it took the issue seriously. The evidence also showed it visited the resident to help her with an insurance claim in March 2023 and May 2024. We are aware the insurance claim for damaged items was ultimately declined, however it was reasonable for the landlord to visit and try to help.
  8. A landlord should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither us or the landlord can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. The record keeping in this case was overall of a good standard, but there were a number of appointments where there was limited information or no record of what happened. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what action was taken at every stage of the handling of the reports of damp and mould, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. It was unclear:
    1. Exactly what the surveyor found in November 2022.
    2. What happened between 19 December 2022 and 4 January 2023.
    3. Exactly when the surveyor attended in January 2023, or what was found.
    4. Exactly when the PIV unit was fitted.
    5. What work (if any) the contractor had carried out after the email from the landlord’s surveyor on 29 June 2023 in relation to the bedroom mould.

The repair records also showed multiple repairs raised to:

  1. Re-connect the bathroom extractor fan after the wet room was installed.
  2. Fix the bedroom skirting board.

The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, it should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors to ensure the PIV unit noise issue was addressed.

  1. Overall, the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. It was quick to send surveyors, and it acted on the expert opinion of the surveyors it sent. We acknowledge the landlord apologised for the delays addressing the noise issue of the PIV and it offered £50 compensation in its stage 2 response. However, there were minor failings by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or fully put them right. We therefore find service failure and order £100 in compensation. If the £50 offered at stage 2 has already been paid to the resident, this can be deducted.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says:
    1. A complaint will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days.
    2. Stage 1 complaints should be dealt with within 10 working days. If an extension is required, this will need to be agreed with the resident.
    3. A stage 2 complaint will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days.
    4. Stage 2 complaints should be dealt with within 20 working days. Some cases may require longer, in which case the resident will be told. This should not exceed a further 20 working days.
  2. The stage 1 response was issued 10 working days after the complaint was received, which was positive. But the stage 2 response was not sent until 55 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The evidence showed the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her it required an extension, but this was not until 18 April 2024, over 2 months after the escalation request. The landlord did not apologise for, or acknowledge, the delay in its stage 2 response, which was a failing.
  3. There were also a number of errors in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord’s:
    1. Stage 1 response said:
      1. The initial request for a damp inspection was made on 24 January 2023. But the records showed the resident had previously requested inspections in at least October and November 2022.
      2. “No surveyor or contractor have witnessed mould at any point.” However, this was incorrect as the surveyor that attended in June 2023 noted the bedroom was still “suffering from mould.”
      3. The resident moved to the property in 2023, which was incorrect.
    2. Stage 2 response said the landlord fitted trickle vents to the windows. The resident said this did not happen in correspondence with us. The repair records would suggest she was correct as repairs raised on 2 November 2023 to fit trickle vents to 2 windows showed as being cancelled.
  4. Given the delay sending the stage 2 complaint response, the errors in both complaint responses, and the fact the stage 1 response did not consider compensation for the delays fixing the PIV, a finding of service failure is made. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation to acknowledge these failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £200 compensation in recognition of the failures identified. This is made up of:
    1. £100 for the minor failings in relation to the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered previously if this has already been paid.
    2. £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.