South Tyneside Council (202428304)

Background

1. In March 2024, the resident reported damp and mould caused by a leak from her bathroom. She complained about the time the landlord had taken to complete the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak and related damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and related damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acted in line with its policies and took appropriate steps to resolve the issue, including completing the works and using its discretion not to recharge the resident. It also acknowledged a delay in securing temporary accommodation and apologised.
5. The landlord issued its complaint responses in line with the Complaint Handling Code.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

6. The resident says her family experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

7. This investigation focuses on the concerns raised in the resident’s formal complaint. We have reviewed the period from March 2024 to December 2024 to ensure the landlord had a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to those concerns. The resident may wish to pursue any current issues directly with the landlord as a new formal complaint.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will act promptly, investigate the cause, and complete works within a reasonable timescale. It also says it will consider temporary accommodation where works are extensive or may affect the resident’s health. Its repairs policy says that it attends to routine repairs within 20 working days. More complex repairs follow a planned works programme.
9. The resident reported damp and mould on 13 March 2024. The landlord attended on 25 March 2024 but could not gain access. It rearranged the inspection for 3 April 2024 and found mould caused by a leak from the bathroom suite installed by the resident. It sealed the area the same day to make it safe. These actions were in line with its repairs policy.
10. The landlord completed a survey on 10 April 2024 and found the bathroom needed replacing, the floor lifting, and the mould treating. It confirmed it would need to move the resident into temporary accommodation so it could complete these repairs. This was in line with its damp and mould policy, as it found the source, planned action, and appropriately considered temporary accommodation.
11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. It confirmed it would replace the bathroom and treat the mould, and that it would not charge the resident for this work. Under its repairs policy, it can recharge where damage results from the resident’s actions. As the resident installed the bathroom, the landlord could have recovered the cost of the replacement but chose not to. This was a fair and proportionate approach. It avoided placing a financial burden on the resident while still allowing the necessary works to progress.
12. The landlord also apologised for its delays in securing temporary accommodation. It needed to complete the repairs due to damage linked to the resident’s bathroom installation. However, once aware of the issue, the landlord took responsibility for the works. It confirmed it had made the property safe by sealing the affected area to contain the mould and prevent it from spreading. This was a reasonable step to manage the risk. The delay in securing temporary accommodation affected how quickly it could complete the repairs. As such, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge the delay and apologise.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 July 2024. It said it offered the resident temporary accommodation on 10 June 2024, but she refused this. She instead asked for a permanent move. It confirmed that it had increased her property banding based on her medical evidence. This was in line with its allocations policy and shows it took steps to progress repairs while offering the resident additional support.
14. The landlord also confirmed it would carry out a full strip out of the bathroom and kitchen ceiling. It said it would then treat the mould and install a new bathroom, with works due to start on 7 August 2024. This was a reasonable response, as it set clear actions and timeframes in line with its repairs policy. It also advised the resident to claim for any damaged belongings through its insurance. Given the evidence indicates the leak and resulting damp and mould were caused by the resident’s actions, rather than any failing by the landlord, this advice was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
15. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, it began the agreed works on 6 August 2024 in line with its commitment. The works paused when the resident asked it to install her own bathroom suite, which she provided by 30 August 2024. This was reasonable as the landlord had no obligation to agree to this. It completed the work in September 2024. It resolved all snagging issues, including completing a further mould test by 16 December 2024. The landlord followed a clear planned works programme, completed the repairs, and promptly dealt with any follow‑on issues.
16. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its policies. It investigated the cause, made the property safe, and completed the necessary works. It appropriately used its discretion by choosing not to recharge the resident. It also acknowledged the delay in securing temporary accommodation and apologised. In this case, we find the apology was a reasonable and proportionate remedy to put things right.

17. The landlord uses a 2‑stage complaints procedure aligned to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires landlords to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and provided a stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
18. The resident raised a complaint on 17 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 6 working days later on 28 May 2024, in line with the Code.
19. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2024. On 16 July 2024 the landlord requested an extension, which was in line with the Code. It issued its stage 2 response on 30 July 2024, 33 days after the resident raised the complaint. This was in line with the timeframe it set out in its extension request.
20. Overall, the landlord’s complaint response timescales and extension request were in line with the Code. As such, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

General learning

21. The landlord showed good practice by acting in line with its policies. It took prompt steps to investigate the issue, make the property safe, and progress the required works. It also showed a fair, resident-focused approach by using its discretion not to recharge for the works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord kept good records of its actions to resolve the leak, damp, and mould.

Communication

23. The landlord communicated clearly by explaining its actions, offering options, setting out repair plans and timescales, and keeping the resident informed.