Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202202659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202659

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

19 June 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.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
4. The resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in his property around August 2021. The exact date is unclear. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2022. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues in his property. He said the inspection of August 2021 happened 6 months after his initial report. He confirmed none of the repairs recommended in its August 2021 inspection were done. It does not appear the landlord responded to the complaint at the time.
6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2022. It said the resident reported damp and mould in August 2021 and there was a delay between August 2021 and January 2022 before it inspected. There was then a further delay between January 2022 to July 2022 before it produced a report. It said its surveyor had recommended installing a soakaway and instructing a damp specialist surveyor. It apologised for its handling of the issue and offered £550 in compensation. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to take his complaint to the next stage in its process.
7. The landlord instructed a damp specialist surveyor to inspect the property in July 2022, and the surveyor provided a report to the landlord on 1 August 2022. Its inspection found “no excessive readings indicated to penetrating or rising damp”. It cited an issue with condensation, and recommended:
   1. Installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
   2. Hacking off the plaster on the affected walls, waterproof them, and then replaster.
8. The landlord raised works to install the extractor fans on 19 August 2022. It completed an asbestos survey in September 2022. It does not appear the works went ahead at that time.
9. The landlord sent the resident a stage 3 complaint response on 5 December 2022. It apologised for the length of time taken to do the works. It explained the schedule of works was awaiting approval. It also apologised for the length of time taken to send its complaint response, and offered £100 in compensation in view of this.

Events after the complaints process

10. The landlord installed the soakaway on 14 December 2022. It completed the water proofing and plastering works in January 2024.
11. The resident contacted us on 10 January 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter and repairs were outstanding.
12. The resident moved out of the property in February 2025, following a successful bid on the landlord’s choice based lettings system.
13. We asked the landlord about its latest position on the extractor fan repairs in June 2025. The landlord did not respond to our enquiry.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

14. The information available shows the resident first reported concerns about damp and mould to the landlord in 2019. Considering the passage of time we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould dating back to 2019. This is because evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation over this period. This makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the landlord’s handling of the events in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint in May 2022. This approach is taken in line with that set out in our Scheme which says we look at complaints which were raised with the landlord within a reasonable length of time, generally within 12 months of the matter occurring.
15. The evidence also shows the resident settled a liability insurance claim for damage to his personal possessions in September 2022. As an agreement was reached and the claim settled, we consider this matter closed. It would therefore not be appropriate for us to comment on it in our investigation. We have not considered the settlement offer as part of the compensation offered in the landlord’s complaints process.
16. When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint, he said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on his physical and mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
17. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. We have considered this general risk, rather than any specific impact on health. We have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.
18. After the resident moved property, in February 2025, he raised concerns with us about the landlord’s handling of his rehousing application, and the associated costs of moving. This aspect of his complaint is not within the remit of this investigation. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsuitable conditions and applicants who need to move on medical, or welfare grounds. We can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
19. The resident may wish to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his rehousing application if he remains dissatisfied. He could then ask the LGSCO to investigate if he remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.

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

20. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
21. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
22. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It says it will complete major and planned (repairs that require a visit to plan out the repairs) within 40 working days.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out that it was on notice about the resident’s reports of damp and mould from August 2021.There is no evidence of a report from around this time in the records the landlord provided us. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. In fact, the resident claimed in his complaint he reported the concerns 6 months before this. The landlord did not address this concern in its complaint response. Considering the lack of available information, it is not possible to determine which claim is accurate. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s poor record keeping around the repairs at this time contributed to delays in progressing with the matter.
24. The landlord also claimed it inspected the resident’s property in January 2022 and it accepted this delay was unreasonable. Again, it has not provided us with evidence of this inspection. This is a further failing in its record keeping. The landlord accepted it did not progress with the matter until July 2022, despite claiming to have inspected in January 2022. This was an unreasonable delay of 7 months from its inspection and nearly a year after it accepted it was on notice. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in his property. The unreasonable delay may have increased the distress he experienced. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need make a complaint, in May 2022, before the landlord took any meaningful action.
25. We welcome the fact the landlord instructed a damp specialist surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. It is concerning it did not instruct it for nearly a yar after it accepted it was on notice. Our spotlight report on damp and mould (which is available on our website) says where specialist surveys are required, landlords should ensure the need is identified early on and that work orders are progressed in a timely manner. The evidence shows the landlord did not adopt such an approach in this case, which was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by unacceptable delays in progressing with the repairs.
26. We welcome the fact the landlord accepted the delays were unreasonable and offered compensation. This shows it sought to put things right for the resident. However, the repairs were outstanding at the time of its compensation offer. This impacts on the degree to which its offer put right things right for the resident. It was a shortcoming in its response that it did not set out when it hoped the soakaway repair, and the damp and mould inspection, would go ahead. It missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously.
27. Following the damp specialist inspection, the landlord raised the recommended repairs on 19 August 2022. The need to complete an asbestos survey evidently complicated the repairs. However, the evidence shows the landlord did not progress with any of the repairs in reasonable period after its asbestos survey in September 2022. This further delay inconvenienced the resident and may have increased the distress he experienced.
28. The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response appropriately apologised it had not yet progressed with the repairs. However, the response did not give any meaningful detail on what caused the delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. It also failed to say when it hoped the repairs would start. This lacked learning and transparency. Considering the further delay of 5 months up to that point, it was unreasonable it did not offer compensation for the delay. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
29. The landlord completed the works to install a soakaway in December 2022. This was nearly a year after it identified this as a possible remedy to the issues at the property. This was well outside of its 40 working day timeframe for major/planned repairs set out in its repairs policy. The resident was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay. The landlord lacked the appropriate urgency to try and remedy the issues in the property.
30. There was a further delay of another year before the landlord completed the waterproofing and plastering works, in January 2024. This is an unacceptable delay. The evidence shows the resident was inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly chase the repair on at least 3 occasions between December 2022 and January 2024. The unreasonable delay may have increased the distress he experienced.
31. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord progressed with the extractor fan installation prior to the resident moving out in February 2025. It is unacceptable the landlord did not prioritise this repair. Particularly considering the damp specialist survey cited condensation as the main issue in the property.
32. As set out above, the landlord’s offer of £550 for its handling of the repairs did not put things right for the resident. Considering the failings identified above we have determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
33. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders between £600 and £1,000 may appropriate to put things right where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, over a prolonged period of time. We therefore consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay the resident a further £650 in compensation for its handling of the matter. This is in addition to the £550 it already offer, brining the total order to £1,200.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

34. The landlord’s complaint policy supplied for this investigation says it has a 3 stage complaints process. It does not provide timeframes for responses at stage 1. It says it will send stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. It says stage 3 complaints involve its chief executive reviewing the outcome of the complaint and providing a response within 20 working days.
35. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that 2 stage complaints procedures are “ideal”, and “complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested” it. The Code states landlords must send stage 3 responses within 20 working days. Our Code has since changed to require landlords to only have a 2 stage complaints process. According to the landlord’s website it has not yet changed its complaints procedure to comply with the Code.
36. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in May 2022. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord sent a formal stage 1 complaint response. This was unreasonable and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by an unfair and hard to access complaints process. The Code, at the time, required landlords to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, including an explanation of what stage the complaint was at. The landlord’s approach to stage 1 complaints was not compliant with the Code at the time.
37. The resident did not get a formal complaint response until July 2022, 2 months after he complained. This was an unreasonable delay that caused an inconvenience. It lacked learning by not apologising or offering compensation for the delay up to that point.
38. The landlord sent the resident its stage 3 complaint response 5 months later. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay. However, it offered no learning about what caused the delay, and it failed to address the delay at stage 2 of the complaints process. This was a shortcoming in its response, and it missed an opportunity to put things right for the entirety of the complaint handling delays. We have therefore determined its offer of £100 in compensation did not put things right, and there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
39. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. We have determined an order for a further £100 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is in addition to the £100 it already offered, bringing the total compensation to £200 for this aspect of the complaint.
40. On 8 February 2024, we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
41. We have a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
42. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

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

Orders

44. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Instruct a senior officer (equivalent to director level or above) to apologise, in person or by telephone according to the resident’s preference, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,400 in compensation. It should deduct the £650 it already offered from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
       1. £1,200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
       2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

45. Considering the failings identified in this report, we recommend the landlord completes a review into its handling of the resident’s repairs in this case. This should include how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again.