Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202501385)

Decision
Case ID	202501385
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in the property with her partner, who is also her carer. Both communicated with the landlord throughout the complaint, for simplicity this report refers to them both as the resident. The resident’s partner has mental health vulnerabilities, while the resident herself has both physical and mental health vulnerabilities. The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the installation of a skirting board and the cavity wall insulation. She also raised concerns about the rear door to the property, and disability discrimination.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding:
1. The installation of a skirting board.
2. The installation of the cavity wall insulation.
3. The rear door.
4. Disability discrimination.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the installation of the skirting board.
We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the rear door.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. The cavity wall insulation.
2. Disability discrimination.
We have also found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The skirting board

The landlord acknowledged its error, took responsibility and apologised. It also raised the communication failures internally in an attempt to prevent it happening again.

The installation of the cavity wall insulation

Initially the repair did not go ahead as planned due to miscommunicated dates and then again due to inadequate investigations at the planning stage. Most significantly, the operatives did not take the required measures to protect the resident from exposure to dust, in line with her requests.

The rear door

The landlord arranged for an independent chartered surveyor to inspect the door and establish if the door needed to be replaced or required any repairs. It then completed the necessary works identified by the surveyor, which was appropriate.

The handling of the reports of disability discrimination

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had adequately investigated the resident’s reports of disability discrimination, which likely left her feeling that the matter was not a priority for the landlord.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord did not address all complaint points highlighted by the resident. It also did not offer compensation for the identified failures.

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 provided by a senior manager 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 19 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the installation of the cavity wall insulation £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the allegations of disability discrimination £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 June 2026
3	Complaint handling order The landlord must open new complaints regarding the resident’s reports of disability discrimination, missing cavity wall insulation and the missing EPC. It must also contact the resident and ask if there are any complaints she has raised that it has not already responded to. It must then progress any unanswered complaints through its complaint handling process.	No later than 19 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 May 2025 – 28 May 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: the operative who attended to install the skirting board had left and not returned the landlord had not inspected inside the cavity wall prior to the contractors arriving to conduct the work the contractors had not cleaned away the dust after the work the landlord had not finished the drill holes left by the contractors to a satisfactory standard the landlord had “fraudulently” told her that the property had cavity wall insulation and an EPC in 2024
30 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it apologised that the work scheduler had not informed the resident that the operative had experienced a puncture and would not be returning it had attempted to source another joiner that day, but none were available it completed the work to the skirting board the following day. the insulation contractor apologised for communicating the incorrect dates it should have inspected the cavity prior to the insulation installer coming to complete the work once aware of the issue it had taken steps to ensure it cleared the cavity of rubble, ready for the insulation on 21 May 2026 it attended on 22 May 2026 to clean away the dust left by the contractors on 21 May 2026 on 29 May 2025 it repaired the holes left by the insulation installers it would raise the resident’s experience with its contractor, particularly her concerns that it had not considered her vulnerabilities it had arranged an independent surveyor to inspect the other repairs the resident had raised
4 – 5 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint; She listed the complaint points the landlord had responded to and advised of others it had missed. She said it had not responded to her: complaint about disability discrimination. concerns about complaint handling and the difficulty logging complaints. concerns around all aspects of contractor management. about the organisations culture and the lack of customer care Requests for compensation for: the cleaning she had to undertake the electricity used by the contractors the illness she suffered caused by the works
3 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It was satisfied that its stage 1 response was an accurate record of its findings It was not economical to pebble dash the small areas the contractors had drilled for the insulation Its repairs team would contact the resident to arrange for the works highlighted after the surveyor’s inspection on 9 June 2025 It had met with the resident on 5 June 2025 and discussed her organisational concerns as well as the outstanding repairs and the issues she had raised around the water supply and asbestos
Referral to the Ombudsman	As an outcome the resident wanted the landlord to respond to her complaint points about disability discrimination, pebbledash the holes used to insert the cavity wall insulation and to replace the back door.
Other cases	The resident previously complained to the Ombudsman (case reference: 202332068) regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs at her property. While we may refer to the above case, we have not re-assessed any of the points investigated in it. There is also a further case with our triage department, which relates to a sewage incident as well as repairs to the coal shed.

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 the skirting board
Finding	Reasonable redress

On 14 May 2025, an operative attended the resident’s property to install a section of skirting board. The resident said that when the operative arrived, they were unsure what repairs they were meant to undertake and did not have the required materials. She said this was frustrating and an indication of poor planning and organisation. Given the number of ongoing repairs, the resident’s frustration was understandable.
The operative left to obtain the required materials. Due to a puncture, they were unable to return. The landlord’s internal notes indicate the operative attempted to call the resident but that they were unable to get through. In this instance the landlord’s repairs policy indicates that a voicemail should be left or a text message sent. Neither happened, which was unhelpful.
The operative notified the landlord’s work scheduler that they would not be returning and asked them to tell the resident, but this did not happen. This is an indication of poor communication that caused her further frustration as well as time and trouble pursuing the landlord to understand what was happening. Another operative attended the following day and completed the repair.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged its mistakes and the poor communication, which was appropriate. The internal notes show that it also spoke to the work scheduler and “stressed the importance of good communication”. It would have been helpful if the landlord had outlined this last point in its complaint response to demonstrate its learning and the steps it had taken to prevent recurrence.
We find that the landlord’s apology was sufficient to resolve the matter.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the cavity wall insulation
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not look at

The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her and her partners health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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 any further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord that she had been informed the property had cavity wall insulation, when viewing the property. She also stated that the landlord had provided paperwork to verify that the insulation was present. However, she later discovered after a survey on 8 January 2025 that no insulation was present in the cavity and that the property did not have an EPC. On 28 May 2025, she asked the landlord to raise a new complaint regarding the absence of the EPC and cavity wall insulationas well as the impact this had had on her. She said she considered the issue as fraud.
The landlord did not raise the complaint as requested and did not respond to the resident’s concerns. We have therefore not investigated the matter here. However, we have made an order for the landlord to raise a new complaint regarding the absence of the EPC and cavity wall insulation to address the resident’s concerns.

What we did look at

On 15 May 2025, the resident contacted the contractor to ask why the operatives had not turned up to install the cavity wall insulation. The contractor advised it had booked the work for 16 May, not the 15 and 16 May 2025. It sincerely apologised. It acknowledged that the error was its responsibility and confirmed it would review the matter internally to prevent recurrence. While the apology was appropriate the missed appointment was frustrating for the resident.
The contractors arrived on 16 May 2025 to begin the work. After drilling holes, they found that there was an amount of rubble within the cavity. They advised the resident that they could not continue until the landlord had cleared the rubble. This demonstrates poor work planning and communication between the landlord and its contractor. The error caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience as well as time and trouble having to rearrange personal plans. Appropriately, the landlord took steps to clear the cavity to allow the contractor to install the cavity wall insulation the following week.
From 2023 the resident had notified the landlord repeatedly about her allergy to dust, this can be seen throughout case 202332068. There is no evidence that it communicated this to the contractor before the works to install the cavity wall insulation began.
On 21 March 2025, the resident also asked the landlord to ensure the contractors used tarpaulins to protect the external areas from dust and stone. However, the operatives did not implement the required measures or clean away the dust. This was a failure of the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken the necessary steps to ensure measures were in place to address the resident’s vulnerability.
On 16 May 2025, the resident told the landlord that when the contractors returned, they must use dust sheets and clean away all dust upon completion. It communicated this to the contractor in an email the same day.
Despite the resident’s request, the contractors did not use dust sheets or clean away the dust when they conducted the work on 21 May 2025. We recognise that the landlord had informed the contractor of the measures the operatives had to take. However, it is responsible for the actions of the third party contractors it employs. The continuing failure to take simple precautionary steps and to adequately clean after the work was significant. It caused the resident ongoing distress and inconvenience that could easily have been avoided. The landlord sent 2 operatives to clean the area the following day, which was appropriate.
On 22 May 2025, the resident notified the landlord and contractor that the operatives had not finished off the drill holes or added pebbledash in keeping with the current wall finish. She said both parties had agreed to this during the planning stage. The ongoing issues with the work caused further frustration for the resident.
On 28 May 2025, the contractor told the resident that it would return to render the holes with pebbledash to ensure it was completed to the resident’s satisfaction. However, the landlord then informed the contractor that it would be taking all further works forward itself. It rendered the holes but did not add the pebbledash finish, which was upsetting for the resident.
The resident continued to raise her concerns that the absence of the pebbledash created a risk of moisture entering the cavity and damaging the insulation. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it had filled the holes with an appropriate material. It said that the holes were small and that it was not economical to pebbledash them. The changing position in relation to the finish of the wall was unfair and caused the resident significant frustration. However, the landlord has been clear that it sees the pebbledash as a cosmetic issue rather than a defect.
While we understand the resident’s frustration, landlords are generally permitted to allocate their resources as they see fit. We are therefore unable to require the landlord to add the pebbledash finish to the wall.
The resident asked the landlord to award compensation for what she had experienced as well as for the contractors using her electricity supply for their drills. The landlord apologised for its actions and the issues that arose but did not pay compensation. We do not believe this was fair, given the failures identified above. We have therefore made an award of £250 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for circumstances where the landlord’s failures have had an adverse impact on the resident.
The request to use the resident’s electricity supply for power tools was reasonable. The above compensation award does not include any consideration of electricity costs.

Complaint	The handling of the repairs to the rear door
Finding	No maladministration

On 8 January 2025, the landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to conduct a damp and mould inspection of the property. During the inspection the surveyor identified that the lower part of the rear door was a cold spot, as shown on an infrared camera. There was no recommendation within the report to change the door.
The resident continued to inform the landlord that she had mould growing on the door and that it was old and not fit for purpose. She also informed the landlord that it was aware that she was allergic to black mould. She raised the issue again in an email to the landlord on 21 May 2025. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised that it had arranged a further inspection to assess the resident’s concerns with the rear door.
The inspection was undertaken by an independent chartered surveyor on 9 June 2025. The landlord instructed the surveyor to “assess the condition of the rear door and advise whether repairs are needed or if full replacement is required”. In the conclusion of the report the surveyor identified several minor repairs for the landlord to complete. They said that in their opinion the door did not need to be replaced.
In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to undertaking the necessary repairs, which it did. The landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The resident has continued to tell the landlord that the door is not fit for purpose and that mould is present on the seals and that it is causing the skirting board to be damp. Given the resident’s allergies and the reports of damp we have notified the landlord of a possible material change under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. This requires the landlord to decide whether it needs to conduct a further inspection of the door and to record its decision in writing.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s reports of disability discrimination
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told the landlord that it had not considered her disabilities as part of the skirting board repair. She also said that its handlingof the installation of the cavity wall insulationwas a form of disability discrimination and that she wanted to make a complaint about it. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that it would discuss with the contractor why it had failed to take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account during the work.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise the issues with the contractors. However, the resident’s complaint went beyond just the actions of the contractor.
The resident’s allegations were serious and warranted a proper response from the landlord. It is our opinion that it failed to answer or adequately respond to the resident’s claims of discrimination in both stages of the complaint.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination in relation to whether discrimination occurred. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with her and ask her to explain how she had been affected by its actions. It should have demonstrated that it conducted a thorough investigation into her concerns about discrimination (for example, by speaking to relevant members of staff and reviewing records) and clearly explained its decision making with reference to the level of available evidence. Its failure to fully do so could have been perceived by the resident to minimise or undermine what she no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
As a result of the failings identified we have made an award of £200 compensation. Again, this amount is in line with our compensation guidance.
Due to the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately we have made an order for it to revisit the resident’s complaint and to provide a response to her allegations. It must seek to explore why the resident felt she was being discriminated against. It must then identify any short comings and what actions, if any, are necessary to prevent future occurrences arising. It should also consider if any further compensation should be awarded in line with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the required timescales.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made. The Code requires landlord’s to respond to all complaint points. The landlord did not open complaints that the resident raised around the missing insulation or EPC. It also did not respond appropriately to her concerns around disability discrimination. This was unreasonable and prevented the resident from obtaining a timely resolution. It was also a failure to comply with the landlord’s complaints policy and the code.
We have made an order for the landlord to follow up with the resident on complaints she believes have not already been addressed.
In the resident’s complaint emails to the landlord, she requested compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience she had experienced. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged there were failings but did not offer compensation. This was not in line with its policy which allows for compensation to be paid for instances where there was avoidable errors or unfair impact. Not awarding compensation as part of its stage 1 complaint response was unfair.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she repeated her request for compensation. However, the landlord again did not award compensation or explain why it had chosen not to do so. Its compensation policy requires it to consider the cumulative impact on the resident from the point the service failure occurred as well as the complaint process and the impact of any follow on actions. We have not seen evidence to show the landlord considered the resident’s request for compensation, in line with its policy. This was unreasonable, and both a failure to put things right and to learn from its mistakes.
Due to the findings outlined above we have awarded £100 compensation. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for instances where there has been a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

If the landlord decides to change its mind on how it intends to conduct repairs it should provide a swift and comprehensive explanation. It should also consider answering any concerns that have arisen because of the change. This would have been beneficial in relation to the changing position on the pebbledash in this case.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping during our investigation.

Communication

Throughout the case the resident contacted the landlord frequently via email. The emails were often lengthy and repeated previously raised points. It is likely that the volume and repetitive nature of these communications at times made it challenging for the landlord to efficiently progress matters. However, it is clear the resident continues to experience ongoing frustration and distress in relation to the situation. Considering this, it would be helpful for the landlord to approach communications with empathy while also encouraging more concise and focused engagement to support effective and timely resolution to any outstanding matters.