Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202321199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321199

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

9 August 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of repairs and damp and mould at the resident’s former property.
2. response to the resident’s concerns about her time in emergency and temporary accommodation.
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom bungalow, which she occupied with her young daughter. The tenancy commenced in 2018. The landlord placed the resident in emergency hotel accommodation in October 2022 and later in temporary accommodation in December 2022. The landlord made this permanent, and her new tenancy commenced in April 2023.
The resident has multiple disabilities, including lupus, arthritis and asthma, which the landlord is aware of. The resident had a representative act on her behalf during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord raised an inspection of the wet room and kitchen floor. In June 2022 and July 2022, the landlord inspected the kitchen and wet room. In August 2022 the resident contacted her local councillors about damp and mould concerns in the property and said that it was affecting the health of the household. In October 2022 the landlord inspected the property and subsequently arranged emergency hotel accommodation for her. In addition, it agreed to apply for a direct let.
On 10 June 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. In summary, she said she had lived with significant damp and mould for 3 years and repairs were not resolved within appropriate timescales. She said the situation had significantly impacted her health and she felt the landlord had ignored this. She also raised concerns about her time in emergency and temporary accommodation. This included the hotels’ suitability, and the type of furniture provided to her while in temporary accommodation. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to apologise for its lack of regard for her health needs and for it to review its procedures for dealing with reports of damp and mould.
On 13 December 2023, following contact from the Service, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
1. In 2018 there was a job to relay loft insulation and an inspection was raised in January 2020 but due to a backlog and COVID-19 restrictions it was unable to carry out this work for some time. It acknowledged that the resident had chased it multiple times with little response.
2. It noted that upon services returning to normal, the resident waited a significant period to have any repairs attempted or reviewed.
3. It initially moved the resident into a hotel but as this was unsuitable for her, she had requested the landlord cancel the booking and she would sofa-surf until it found a temporary property for her.
4. The resident temporarily moved into her current property in December 2022 and it agreed it would carpet the habitable rooms and fund a furniture package for her. The move became permanent in April 2023.
5. It apologised that her June 2023 complaint was not sent to the correct department, and it had put plans in place to avoid this happening again.
6. It would offer £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience and poor complaint handling.
In the resident’s escalation request of 21 December 2023, she said the landlord had not acknowledged the impact the situation had on the health of her household nor the medical evidence she had provided. She added that the landlord had not considered her health needs at her former property or in emergency and temporary accommodation. Further, she said the landlord had failed to mention any intention to review its procedures for dealing with damp and mould. She explained that she incurred debt having to replace essential items due to the damage caused to her possessions by the damp and mould. She was also unhappy with the delays in responding to her complaint.
On 29 February 2024, following contact from the Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
1. Following contact from the resident in October 2022, it arranged for an independent damp company to assess the issues.
2. It apologised if she felt it had not acknowledged her doctor’s letter that recommended she be rehoused.
3. In April 2023 it had put a new process in place for damp and mould reports, and it was continuously reviewing ways to improve communications to its residents.
4. In respect of the damage to her belongings, she received a full response to her insurance claim in November 2023 and was sorry it was not the outcome she had hoped for.
In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said she was unhappy with the delays in responding to her complaints and the quality of the landlord’s responses. She also felt that the landlord had failed to adjust its service to meet her health needs and had not given due regard to her disabilities. As an outcome, she wanted a meaningful apology, acknowledging the lack of consideration for the household’s health needs, a detailed response about improvements made to damp and mould procedures and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord has provided this Service with repair logs from 2018. The Ombudsman acknowledges that in the resident’s complaint, she said she had been dealing with damp and mould for 3 years and that repairs from 2018 to 2021 to the loft insulation and wet room and kitchen flooring were delayed. Indeed, the landlord’s formal complaint response in part acknowledges this.
However, as the resident made a formal complaint in June 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred during this period. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This investigation has therefore not considered any specific events before April 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling of the resident’s reports from April 2022 onwards.
The resident has also advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident and the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.
Additionally, this Service recognises that the resident felt that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her possessions due to its handling of her reports of damp and mould. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. Neither can this Service assess the handling or decision-making of an insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and damp and mould at the resident’s former property.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord raised an inspection to renew the wet room and kitchen flooring. While it is unclear what prompted this, the landlord acted appropriately by trying to arrange an appointment with the resident the same day. However, it was unsuccessful in doing so and it was not until 18 May 2022, 19 days later that it tried again. Given the landlord was aware of the ongoing and historical repair issues in this case it is unclear why it did not try again sooner. Furthermore, when the landlord did arrange an appointment with the resident for 25 May 2022, it had to cancel it, as no inspector was available. Although it acted reasonably by informing the resident of this in advance, it did not book another appointment until 14 June 2022, around 20 days later. While these were not considerable delays, the landlord failed to treat the situation with the urgency required.
On 22 June 2022 the landlord arranged another inspection for a full kitchen and wet room refurbishment. The landlord’s records suggested this was carried out on 7 July 2022. It is unclear why another inspection was needed. In any case, it was not until 12 August 2022, over 1 month after this inspection that the landlord raised an order to renew the kitchen and wet room flooring. This was an unreasonable delay. Moreover, these were highlighted as planned works to be completed within 40 working days. However, it failed to do so. The landlord completed the works on 21 November 2022, over 5 months after it had raised the initial inspection in April 2022. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely had to live with significant disrepair in her property for several months.
On 10 August 2022 the resident contacted her local councillors about damp and mould which she said was affecting the health of the household. Although it is not entirely clear when these damp and mould concerns were first brought to the landlord’s attention, this Service has seen a schedule of works following its 14 June 2022 inspection which showed that multiple repairs were required to the property, including ‘mould treatment to the front door and kitchen areas’. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any immediate steps, following this inspection to try to resolve the issue. This is particularly concerning given that the landlord knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities. In addition, the landlord knew that the property had suffered from damp and mould in the past and that the outstanding repairs which she had lived with for a prolonged period were likely a contributing factor. However, it did not appear to consider these factors nor the urgency of the matter.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in her property for months because of the landlord’s inability to carry out necessary remedial works within a reasonable timescale. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged in its direct let application form that ‘because the repairs had been left for so long the damp had travelled throughout the property’. Further, the landlord did not carry out any interim steps to resolve the damp and mould. These were significant failings which showed a lack of regard for the household’s health and the impact of damp and mould.
At the end of September 2022, the resident contacted her neighbourhood officer saying she was still having ‘terrible problems’ with the house. They responded promptly and inspected the property. Following this inspection, the landlord acted appropriately by moving the resident into emergency hotel accommodation. However, it is unclear why this decision was not made sooner. It appears the landlord only took this action following the involvement of local councillors, however, the evidence showed that the landlord was already aware of the damp and mould and the reported health concerns. Its failure to act at the earliest stage would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord had not taken the situation seriously from the outset.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs and damp and mould at the resident’s former property was unsatisfactory. It did not act fairly in this case, there were unreasonable delays, and it failed to act within its policy timescales. While the landlord reflected on some of the historical issues in its formal responses, as the resident had reported these issues during her occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that the damp and mould and repairs needed active and prompt management.
Furthermore, the landlord did not adequately consider the household’s health needs, which may be in part due to how it records vulnerabilities. In the landlord’s submissions to this Service, it acknowledged that while it knew the resident had multiple disabilities and mobility problems, it was unaware of what these were. This is concerning. The resident had clearly detailed her health needs in her complaint to the landlord and had provided it with supporting medical evidence. This amounts to a serious record-keeping issue and an order has been made below for remedy.
Although the landlord appeared to offer compensation for delays in completing the necessary repairs, this Service considers that this amount was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s failings would have had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation guidance suggests awards from £700 should be considered where there has been a significant and long-term effect on the resident, including physical or emotional impact. This is broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests awards from £600 should be considered where there has been a significant adverse effect on the resident. In view of this, this Service has determined that there was maladministration and an order for compensation has been made below in line with the above guidance.

Response to the resident’s concerns about her time in emergency and temporary accommodation

For this aspect of the complaint, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to the lack of evidence. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the resident during this period. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly.
The landlord has provided evidence that on 10 October 2022, it booked an emergency 2-week stay for the resident at a hotel. The same day, it also completed a direct let application for a permanent move to another property. These initial steps were appropriate in the circumstances. There is also evidence that shows the landlord booked a new hotel on 12 October 2022 following concerns raised by the resident about the suitability of the first hotel. The landlord acted quickly in this respect which showed it was taking her concerns seriously. However, this Service has seen no other evidence relating to the resident’s time in emergency and temporary accommodation from 13 October 2022 onward. This is concerning given this was a large element of the resident’s June 2023 complaint.
In summary, the resident felt the landlord had failed to acknowledge and consider her complex health needs throughout her time in both emergency and temporary accommodation. She felt the hotel the landlord placed her in initially was inappropriate for her mobility needs and that the other hotel was far away from her support network. Further, she stated that when she was moved into temporary accommodation in December 2022, the landlord leased her furniture that was not suited for her disabilities. She also raised concerns that the landlord had initially told her that her relatives could not stay overnight despite her relying on family to care for her.
While there was some evidence that the landlord acted promptly to address the resident’s immediate concerns about the suitability of the emergency hotel accommodation, it is apparent that it failed to consider whether these hotels were suitable when they were originally booked. This was despite it being fully aware of her and her child’s health needs. Overall, given the evidence available, this Service can only conclude that the landlord failed to adequately consider the resident’s health needs during her time in emergency and temporary accommodation. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have felt that her needs were being overlooked. This amounts to maladministration and an order for compensation is made below in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests awards over £100 should be considered where there have been failings that have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident first complained to the landlord on 10 June 2023. However, it failed to respond. This led to the resident chasing for a response in August 2023. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint on 30 August 2023. However, it again, failed to respond. This led to the resident contacting this Service for assistance. The landlord finally issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023, over 6 months after the resident’s initial complaint. This was a considerable delay, and the landlord failed to act in line with its 10-working day stage 1 policy timescale.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s escalation request within its 20-working day stage 2 policy timescales. This again led to the resident approaching this Service for assistance. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 29 February 2024 over 2 months after the resident’s escalation request. Further, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
Moreover, the quality of the landlord’s responses was poor. Its stage 1 response failed to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her former property nor her health concerns. It also did not fully address concerns she had raised about her time in emergency and temporary accommodation, despite this being a large part of her complaint. Indeed, its stage 1 response stated that it had only responded to matters relating to her former property. This showed that the landlord had failed to consider all parts of the complaint.
Its stage 2 final response also failed to properly acknowledge her health concerns, despite this being a significant part of the resident’s escalation request. This was a missed opportunity to address this issue. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not taking her health needs seriously. In addition, the resident was caused considerable time and trouble, seeking assistance from this Service on more than one occasion.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. Its responses were delayed, of poor quality and failed to address all the complaint points. Although the landlord offered compensation, it is unclear how much of this it awarded for its poor complaint handling. In any case, this Service considers that this did not go far enough in putting things right for the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This amounts to maladministration and a further order of compensation is made below.
In the resident’s referral to this Service, she felt the landlord’s response to her request for it to review its procedures for dealing with damp and mould was not thorough enough. The landlord’s final response said it had put a new process in place in April 2023 for damp and mould reports. This Service has seen a copy of this report, which provided a good level of detail. The landlord should consider providing a copy of this report to the resident. It should also consider implementing a damp and mould policy. These are set out as recommendations below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs and damp and mould at the resident’s former property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about her time in emergency and temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,400 comprised of:
  1. £150 as offered in its final response if it had not already done so.
  2. A further £800 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs and damp and mould in the resident’s former property.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her time in emergency and temporary accommodation.
  4. A further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Liaise with the resident to ensure that its records correctly reflect her household’s vulnerabilities and seek an understanding of what reasonable adjustments, if any, they may require.
Within the next 8 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Review this decision and the failures set out within it, including its record keeping. The landlord should consider if its repairs and complaint handling staff need any feedback and/or training based on the failures found in this report. In doing so, the landlord must:
  1. Consider the cause of each of the failures in this report
  2. Why they occurred
  3. What it will do to prevent these failures from happening again.
2. The landlord must then produce a written report on its reflections on this and what actions it will take to prevent similar failures in future. It must share a copy of this report with the resident and the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide a copy of its April 2023 damp and mould report to the resident.
The landlord should consider implementing a damp and mould policy.