North Tyneside Council (202450538)

Decision
Case ID	202450538
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	North Tyneside Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	7 January 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in March 2018 with her family. In December 2018 the resident reported issues with mould. The resident was temporarily moved in May 2019 and December 2021, while the landlord completed work to improve thermal efficiency and ventilation of the property. In April 2023 the resident told the landlord that the damp issues had returned.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.

4. The landlord did not complete repairs that were required to reduce damp in a timely manner. It did not recognise its failure and, therefore, missed the opportunity to provide appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was in line with the Code valid at the time of the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £400 for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues. £50 for the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 04 February 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices. Specifically, it should ensure it maintains accurate records of inspections and resident’s contact and service requests.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and establish if they wish to disclose their vulnerabilities, and if so, record these on internal records, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2024	The resident, via a representative raised her complaint in relation to damp and mould (D&M). She said: She believed the landlord knew there were D&M issues before she accepted the property in March 2018. She started reporting issues of damp and mould within a few months.   In 2019 she moved in with family for 4 weeks, while work was completed. The bathroom was replaced, and she redecorated at her own expense. She had been told the landlord had no record of this. In 2020/2021 the D&M continued. She was temporarily moved to another property, her bathroom was replaced again, and she redecorated at her own expense. She was told she could apply for vouchers to help with redecoration costs but was later told she did not qualify for this support as she was in rent arrears. In 2022 she replaced the bedroom carpet to hard flooring as the carpet was often wet and was making her children unwell. This cost the resident £800. In 2022 she was told the window seals needed to be replaced and said the landlord informed her it had photo evidence that this was completed. She disputed the work was completed. In 2023 D&M continued and she redecorated the bathroom again as the paint was peeling off the walls, but signs of mould remained. She had personal property damaged because of mould. She had been told by the landlord that there are issues with its records, with some reports not recorded on its system. That despite the work completed by the landlord, there had been little or no improvement. The representative had commissioned an independent damp and timber specialist who conducted a survey. She listed its observations and recommendations and said she wanted its recommendations implemented in a mutually agreed timescale. She wanted compensation for the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to her complaints, initially logged in 2018. The health and well being of her family was being overlooked. One of her children developed asthma as a baby and continued to have chest problems. Her mental health was also affected.
28 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
8 March 2024	The landlord informed the representative that it needed more time to complete its investigation. And it would issue its response no later than 27 March 2024.
27 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it: Apologised for the delay in completing its investigation. Said it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. Provided a breakdown of the measures completed during the resident’s temporary moves in 2019 and 2021. Said it awarded the resident £150 for decoration costs on 11 July 2019. This had been paid into her rent account, in accordance with her tenancy agreement for compensation awarded when there are arrears on the account. Provided a timeline of actions and repairs completed after the residents D&M report in 2023. Said arrangements were being made for its senior staff to meet the representative and the independent specialist to discuss the issues. Said that once it was made aware of the D&M issues it had appropriately attended and completed necessary works. It noted that some of the works had not been completed due to access issues. Signposted the resident to its insurers to submit a claim for damaged items.
10 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, via her representative. In summary she said: She had been reporting D&M issues to her housing officer and repairs team since her return from the 2021/2022 temporary move. Therefore, if records indicated she had made no reports until 2023 this demonstrated record keeping issues. She disputed that the window seals were renewed in September 2023. That the advice given on 24 March 2024, during a property survey was unhelpful and accusatory. She disputed the record that her house was cluttered and felt this was being used to blame residents for condensation. That the landlord had not addressed her family’s health, redecorating expenses or property damage in its response. She wanted the specialist’s recommendations implemented in a mutually agreed timescale. She wanted compensation for the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to her complaints, initially logged in 2018.
11 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
8 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it said that: It had held 2 meetings with the representative to discuss the issues. The independent surveyor had confirmed it was condensation and not damp causing the issues. Its recommendations included checking the windows and doors and ensuring extractor fans met building regulation standards. As part of a wider works program in the street, the property would be surveyed in line with the recommendations. Once investigative work was complete, a programme of works would be agreed and residents notified. Establishing the cause of moisture related repairs often required a series of remedial work over a period of time. And all works had been carried out in line with its repair response times, aside from the occasions where access to the property was not possible, which had resulted in rearranged appointments. Its stage 1 response had included information relating to the resident’s temporary moves and how she could submit a claim for financial disadvantage. It was sorry for any inconvenience and as learning would ensure that guidance was shared with residents when work was being completed in their homes.
24 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3, via her representative. In summary she said: There was outstanding work. It was the responsibility of the landlord to identify and address this and not blame residents for lifestyle choices.  The landlord’s records were not accurate, and it had not responded to this in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. That the landlord has not addressed her family’s health, redecorating expenses or property damage in its response. No follow up meetings had been arranged to agree timescales for follow on work.
28 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
28 June 2024	The landlord declined the resident’s request to have her complaint heard by a panel at stage 3. In summary it: Said there was no evidence that the resident had been treated unfairly or experienced a service failure and/or this has not been properly addressed. It did not consider that further consideration at stage 3 would produce a demonstrably different outcome.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident came to us, she said she wanted to move to another property and for the landlord to pay compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident has complained of damp and mould since 2018. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until June 2024.
7. This investigation will focus on events between April 2023, when the evidence suggests the resident reported the issues more frequently and June 2024, when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process.
8. The landlord’s records show that, on 25 April 2023, the resident reported that damp had returned to the property. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation (DMC) policy does not provide timescales for when residents should expect investigations into the cause of DMC issues. It was, however, positive that the landlord conducted a survey of the property in a timely manner, on 28 May 2023, 22 working days later to investigate this.
9. The survey concluded that follow on works were required to resolve the issues. It was recommended that the following works were completed, in order:
   1. Removal and renewal of defective seals to the windows – evidence shows this was raised on 8 August 2023 and was completed on 27 September 2023.
   2. Application of waterproofing cream to the spalled brickwork to the gable and rear elevations – evidence shows this was raised on 3 August 2023, an attempt was made to complete this on 16 August 2023, but the landlord’s records show that no access was gained. The reason for this is not recorded.
   3. Service the bathroom extractor fan or upgrade required – evidence shows this was raised on 8 August 2023, an attempt was made to complete this on 17 August 2023, but no access was gained. This reason for this is not recorded. This was assessed again on 14 February 2024, and it was determined that 2 fans needed to be replaced. An attempt to complete this repair was made on 22 February 2024 but no access was gained.
10. The landlord’s evidence does not detail why it took over 2 months to raise the recommended repairs or that it communicated this delay to the resident. This was a failure which would have caused further distress to the resident waiting for action to resolve the issues.
11. The landlord’s evidence shows that it encountered access issues. However, as the landlord was aware of the damp issues, it had a duty to address it, and it ought to have satisfied itself that the issues had been resolved.
12. Additionally, its policy says it would make 3 attempts at access to complete moisture related repairs before involving its housing management team to make additional attempts. By not acting in line with its policy in attempting further appointments/visits, this was a failure.
13. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it made more than one attempt to repair the ‘spalled brickwork’. It has also not provided any explanation of why it took 6 months to reattend to repair the extractor fan.
14. The landlord’s evidence does not show if the resident continued communicating with the landlord in relation to the outstanding repairs recommended by the survey. However, we are aware that she sought the assistance of a representative, who appointed an independent damp specialist to conduct an independent survey of the property.
15. The specialist conducted the inspection on 7 February 2024. Its conclusion was that the main source of damp was condensation. It said that the lack of adequate ventilation meant that simply utilising the heating system was not sufficient to eliminate/prevent this. It provided recommendations to improve the issues.
16. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord conducted another property survey on 26 March 2024. It concluded that the following was required:
    1. Overhaul/service two extractor fans to kitchen and bathroom
    2. Renew mastic seal to window directly to the right-hand side of the front door
    3. Deliver condensation leaflet
17. The landlord’s evidence shows that both repairs were raised promptly, on 28 March 2024, and the resident was given notice of this by letter. It later showed that repairs to the fan were completed on 30 April 2024 and the window on 15 May 2024. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it delivered the condensation leaflet.
18. Additionally, the landlord met with the independent damp specialist and the resident’s representative to discuss the issues. This demonstrated good practice, especially given it was not obligated to consider such works, as it could rely solely on the findings of its own operatives. This demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issues for the resident and others in the same street.
19. The landlord used its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024 to tell the resident that following those meetings it had agreed a wider works program for the resident’s street. It said it committed to:
    1. Conducting a survey on each property, with a focus on doors, windows, vents and extractor fans.
    2. Agreeing a schedule of works and notifying residents, once the surveys had been completed.
20. The evidence shows that the landlord did what it committed to doing in its stage 2 response. It:
    1. Sent a letter to all identified residents on 29 May 2024 to give notice that it would be completing the agreed surveys in a 2-week period in June 2024.
    2. Conducted its survey on the resident’s property on 11 June 2024.
    3. Raised all recommended repairs, promptly, on 13 June 2024.
    4. Attended all repairs within a reasonable time and in line with its responsive repair timescales.
21. Overall, we find the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould to amounts to maladministration. The landlord did not initially raise the repairs in a timely manner or progress the repairs required to resolve the issues after its survey in May 2023. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve matters before it did, and the resident lived with the issues for longer than necessary.
22. The landlord’s handling of matters improved significantly from March 2024. Its engagement with the representative and its independent surveyor demonstrated its commitment to resolving the resident’s issues. It also instigated a wider works program to be progressed for the benefit of other residents in the street.
23. The resident told the landlord that she was concerned with her family’s health and that her mental health was affected. We are sorry to hear this. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury case.
24. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we have considered if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused for the failures identified.
25. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 in recognition of these failures. This level of compensation recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for her effort to have the damp and mould issues resolved in her home.
26. We have not made anorder for any follow up work as the landlord’s evidence does not suggest there are any outstanding damp related issues. If this is not the case, we encourage the resident to tell the landlord at the earliest opportunity to give it the opportunity to put things right.
27. Throughout our investigation, we have found that poor record keeping has impacted the landlord’s ability to manage the damp and mould repairs appropriately. For example, some records are missing or do not provide sufficient details.
28. The landlord has told us it has identified record keeping issues, specifically related to when it needed to temporarily rehouse the resident. It is positive that the landlord has recognised such failings, and that it has initiated a service improvement review and action plan to resolve this. This is good practice to help it learn from its mistakes and improve its processes going forward.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in March 2022.
30. The resident raised her complaint on 27 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this the next day and issued its response on 27 March 2024, 21 working days later. The landlord has produced evidence that it had informed the representative of this delay and that it issued its response in line with the date agreed. This was compliant with the Code in terms of process and timescales.
31. The resident raised her stage 2 escalation request on 10 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this the next day. It issued its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024, 18 working days later. This was compliant with the Code in terms of timescales.
32. The resident raised a further escalation request on 24 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 May 2024. The landlord issued a letter on 28 June 2024, declining the resident’s stage 3 escalation request and setting out its reasons for this.
33. The Code, valid at the time, expected that landlords ‘must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.’
34. The landlord has not provided evidence of its complaint policy, valid at the time of the complaint, therefore we are unable to assess if it responded in line with its policy. It has, however, provided evidence that it appropriately considered the resident’s request and that the decision not to escalate was agreed by 3 senior managers. It’s letter appropriately contained details of how to escalate the matter to us, if the resident remained dissatisfied.
35. The landlord has failed to evidence it completed a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns. Its investigation of the resident’s complaint did not identify its failures in its handling of the damp and mould or offer compensation to the resident. This unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
36. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £50 and £100 for such situations. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the impact of its complaint handling failures. This level of compensation recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for her attempts to resolve this issue.

Learning

37. The landlord demonstrated learning when it recognised that it should ensure it provides suitable guidance for residents when work is being completed in their homes. This was appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

38. Part of the resident’s complaint was that she had been continually reporting the damp issues to her housing officer. The landlord has not provided any record of these reports. This suggests record keeping issues.
39. It is essential that landlords keep accurate and clear records so that it can monitor repairs and communication effectively. The landlord has not provided comprehensive records. The lack of records in this case may have made it more difficult for the landlord to identify or monitor the overall number of repair requests.
40. We have made a relevant recommendation for the landlord to review its record keeping practices.