Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202315737)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315737

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

20 February 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:
    1. The resident’s request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
    2. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. The tenancy began in July 2016. The resident has reported she no longer lives in the property.
  2. On 25 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the front door was leaking water when it rained which was causing mould to grow. The landlord attended on 12 September 2022 but could not gain access to the property. The landlord returned to inspect the issue on 21 September 2022.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 30 September 2022. She advised she had originally reported the matter in March 2020 and the mould was causing her ill health. The landlord attended on 4 November 2022 and noted that there was pointing missing from the brickwork around the front door.
  4. The landlord attended the property again on 20 December 2022. It noted that there was mould on the ceiling and walls in the front porch of the property, and that the plaster was peeling off the walls. The trickle vents in the bedroom had been taped shut and there was no extractor fan in the bathroom. It was suggested that a radiator be installed in the front porch and an extractor fan added to the bathroom. A damp survey was completed on 3 January 2023 which also recommended an extractor fan in the bathroom and a heat source in the porch.
  5. The landlord completed a mould wash on 16 January 2023 and installed an extractor fan on 10 February 2023.
  6. In its complaint response to the resident on 12 June 2023, the landlord outlined that the delay in inspecting the resident’s reports was due to a backlog of work from the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord outlined the works required and noted it believed most of these had been completed. It directed the resident to make an insurance claim for personal items damaged by the presence of damp and mould.
  7. The resident asserted that she first reported damp and mould in March 2020, and that she did not consider that the works carried out by the landlord matched what the surveyor had suggested. The landlord stated that its records shows the resident reported that the brickwork around the front door needed repointing in March 2020, but did not mention damp and mould so the repair was not considered emergency and was cancelled due to Covid-19.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to provide her with the information it holds in relation to her, including her contact with the landlord in March 2020 when she asserts she reported damp and mould. The resident advised she was making this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The resident has advised this Service that at the time of this report, she had not received the requested information.
  9. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 24 July 2023. It reiterated that the resident had not reported damp and mould in March 2020. It noted that the remedial works had now been completed in the resident’s property. The landlord offered £300 compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and the delays in its response to the resident’s concerns.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s Freedom of Information request

  1. It is noted that the resident has made a Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the resident asserts she has not received a response. The resident has not complained to the landlord in relation to this matter. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If the resident wishes to escalate any further matters to this Service, she will need to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process on those matters first.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Freedom of Information request is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the issues reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute 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 the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. 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 lack thereof by the landlord.

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

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy which is available on its website states that it will arrange an inspection of the issue within 20 working days of it being reported.  It will carry out a clean of any surfaces affected by mould within 3 working days of the inspection, and apply an anti-fungicidal treatment to prevent its recurrence. The landlord will also arrange repairs to any defects in the property which may be causing or contributing to the damp within 20 working days for a routine repair, or 90 working days for a complex repair.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) report states that ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
  3. 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.
  4. The resident asserts she first reported damp and mould in March 2020. The landlord’s repair records show a request for the brickwork around the front door to be repointed in March 2020. The landlord states that it does not have any record of the resident reporting leaks, damp, or mould in March 2020. It is not possible to assess or make a determination in relation to the landlord’s contact with the resident in March 2020 as this information is not available.
  5. The landlord’s repair log shows that the repairs in March 2020 were cancelled. This was due to government guidance in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. We cannot hold the landlord responsible for this.
  6. However, the landlord did not follow up on the resident’s reports once government guidance at the time allowed it to. While it is noted that many landlords experienced a backlog of repairs following the easing of lockdown restrictions, it would be expected that the landlord write to the resident to provide an update on when it would complete the repair and the reasons for the delay. That it did not, was a failure. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations which caused inconvenience and distress.
  7. When the resident reported damp and mould on 25 August 2022, the landlord initially attended to inspect within 20 working days, which was appropriate because it was within their policy response times. When it could not gain access, it rearranged the visit for 6 working days later.
  8. The landlord did not conduct further inspections to identify remedial works until 20 December 2022 and 3 January 2023. This was 4 months after the resident’s August 2022 report. The landlord did not complete a mould wash until 16 January 2023. The landlord did not act quickly enough to follow up on its initial visit and did not provide updates to the resident regarding the delay. The landlord did not follow the timeframes in its damp and mould policy which was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when the remedial work would be completed.
  9. The landlord took too long to complete the remedial works in the property. The works were marked as completed on 12 June 2023 which was 109 working days after they were identified. This is outside the landlord’s policy response times for a complex repair. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations by providing updates or reasons for the delay, which was inappropriate.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould amount to maladministration. The landlord did not complete its follow up inspections in good time and the remedial works took too long. The landlord did not communicate with the resident regarding the cause of the delay, or provide assurances for when the works would be completed. The resident was evidently distressed by the condition of her property and by not knowing when it would be resolved.
  11. The landlord has offered the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the impact of the delays. This Service considers that this amount is not sufficient to redress all the failures identified in this report. The Ombudsman awards £500 compensation, this is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where a failure has adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy that was in place at the time of the complaint states that in its stage 1 response it will initially attempt to resolve complaints quickly by providing information or taking action. Where it cannot resolve the complaint, it will escalate it to stage 2 of its process. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of escalation and provide a response within 10 working days. Where a complaint remains unresolved, it will be reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO will provide a response within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord has not provided details of what it considers to be the resident’s first complaint or how it responded at stage 1 of its complaint process. It also has not provided details of the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.  Record keeping is a core function of effective complaint management, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in providing good complaint responses.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 June 2023. The landlord states that it received the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 18 April 2023. This is a period of 36 working days and outside of the landlord’s policy timeframes for a stage 2 response. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2023 and the landlord responded on 24 July 2023 which is a period of 21 working days.
  5. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure to comply with the Code. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframes. This was a failure.
  6. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that £100 compensation is reasonable to redress the failures identified.
  7. We encourage landlords to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered 
    during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that 
    recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider 
    the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Freedom of Information request is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £600. £300 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £500 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the leaks, damp, and mould..
    2. £100 in recognition of the complaint handling failures identified.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.