Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202332614)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332614

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

15 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of roofing repairs and associated damp and mould reports.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 19 August 2019. The property in question is a two-bed semi detached house.
  2. The landlord said that it was not aware of any vulnerabilities for anybody in the property until May 2023. It says it was then made aware of the resident having both physical and mental health concerns, which it has since recorded as vulnerabilities.
  3. The resident first reported water ingress into the property on 31 May 2022. A temporary fix was made on 1 June 2022 and the landlord stated that it would need to carry out a permanent repair by replacing the felt roof.
  4. The resident then reported further water ingress on 17 November 2022 and chased the landlord on 31 January 2023, as the roofing works remained outstanding. The landlord attended and identified that roofing repairs were required before it could carry out internal works. Further reports of severe water ingress, causing damp and mould, were made on 12 April 2023 and 24 April 2023.
  5. On 16 May 2023, the resident’s councillor contacted the landlord to chase the outstanding works following a complaint from the resident’s brother, dated 26 April 2023. The landlord was made aware of the resident having recently been admitted to hospital due to ill health. It was also made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities due to physical and mental health conditions.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 7 July 2023 and acknowledged the delays in resolving the roofing repairs. It said it had carried out a further inspection on 1 June 2023 and it would prioritise the repairs due to the resident’s health concerns. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £250 as part of its response.
  7. The complaint was acknowledged as being escalated on 13 September 2023, as the works remained outstanding. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 October 2023, in which it acknowledged its failings around the delays. The landlord said that the required works would be completed by no later than 3 November 2023, with a post inspection to be carried out following completion. The landlord also increased its compensation offer to £700. Works were completed to the roof following the stage 2 response in November 2023. However, this Service has not had sight of records which detail exactly what was done, or the date on which they were completed.
  8. Following completion of the works detailed at stage 2, the resident raised concerns around the repairs shortly after. On 13 December 2023, she reported that a ceiling had collapsed. The ceiling was made safe and further works were proposed. The resident and her family remained in regular contact with the landlord to chase these works but these were not completed until 19 June 2024. The landlord completed a post inspection and identified that no further works were required. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of roofing repairs and associated damp and mould reports

Roofing repairs

  1. The landlord attended the initial report of water ingress on 31 May 2022 and carried out a temporary fix in line with its repair policy, which states that it should attend and make safe within 24 hours. Its policy then says that any further required works should be arranged in line with the appropriate repair category.
  2. As the recommended works were a replacement felt roof, this was recorded as a ‘planned repair’ that should have been completed within 40 working days, as per the repair policy. However, the landlord failed to complete any notable roofing repairs until November 2023, some 17 months later. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord. This meant that the resident was left with the potential for water ingress and damp and mould in the property during this time. This caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident and her family, who made it clear they were concerned for her wellbeing.
  3. The initial works order raised by the landlord on 31 May 2022 remained open until 5 December 2023, with notes added to it throughout. This shows that the landlord had visibility of the outstanding repair, with notes referring to the lack of action taken since it was sent to a contractor in June 2022. Despite notes showing that emails were sent to request updates, there was no evidence of any active monitoring or responses provided by the relevant teams.
  4. It is clear that the landlord was made aware in May 2023 that the resident was vulnerable and that her son suffered from asthma. Around the same time, it was made aware that the resident had been admitted to hospital and the doctor provided a letter suggesting that the condition of the property “had exacerbated” her health conditions. The landlord acknowledged this within the stage 1 response letter and indicated that the resident would be added to a priority list with the contractor. Although this seems a positive step, the landlord also added that the repairs were “still within target”, which given that they were 11 months outside of its repair timeframe, could not be considered accurate.
  5. As there were clear indications of health and wellbeing concerns for the resident, the landlord should have taken steps to eliminate, or mitigate, those concerns. This could have been achieved by either completing the required works or considering a decant from the property until the completion of the works. Although the resident was added to a ‘priority list’ for the roofing works, this Service has not seen any evidence of a proposal for a decant or that the ‘priority’ quickened the pace of works.
  6. It is clear from internal emails from July 2023 that the landlord was aware of significant delays with the contractor it used for the roofing works. Those emails show it was aware of at least 10 outstanding works orders for properties which had been added to its priority list. Although some delays are understandable, this kind of backlog cannot be considered reasonable, especially when the resident had already been waiting over 13 months at that time.
  7. Despite being aware of these delays, the landlord persisted in waiting on the same contractor rather than seeking an alternative to carry out the required works. The landlord’s actions do not demonstrate any meaningful consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to recognise this as a significant issue and take adequate steps to ensure that either the required works were completed quickly or the resident was offered a decant. It is evident, given the involvement of the resident’s family in trying to resolve these issues throughout, that this caused the resident significant and long-lasting distress and inconvenience.
  8. After the proposed works were completed in November 2023, it is evident that the landlord did not carry out sufficient checks around the quality of the work, as the resident’s ceiling collapsed less than a month later. Given the length of time the works were outstanding and the potential damage that had been caused by the continued water ingress, these kind of checks should have been considered essential. Had adequate checks been carried out, it is highly unlikely that this would have occurred. This is another service failing by the landlord as it missed the opportunity to ensure the quality of the work, leaving the resident to experience further damage to the property along with the additional distress and inconvenience this caused.  
  9. When the resident reported the collapsed ceiling to the landlord so soon after the roofing repairs, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide an increased level of oversight of the situation, particularly given the resident’s previous experience. However, given that these repairs were not completed until 19 June 2024, it is clear that this increased level of service was not provided by the landlord and it failed to learn lessons from its earlier failings.
  10. The landlord said that it has since terminated its relationship with the contractor due to poor workmanship. It explained that the required works were completed in June 2024 by its own repair staff. Although the recent completion of those works is positive, it does highlight that the landlord could have resolved this much sooner had it bypassed use of the contractor that had contributed to the extensive delays.

Damp and Mould

  1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 12 April 2023. Based on this report, the landlord would be expected to carry out an inspection and provide a risk assessment or plan of works to address the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. However, no such inspection was carried out until 8 November 2023, over 6 months later. Despite the initial report in April 2023, the landlord did not raise a works order for a damp and mould inspection until 3 August 2023, over 3 months later. This was then delayed pending the completion of the outstanding roof repairs.
  2. Although the landlord was aware of the outstanding roofing repairs at the time of the report of damp and mould, it was unreasonable to not carry out an inspection at that time. Although the assumption would be that the roof leak was the cause, an inspection may have identified further contributing sources of damp and mould that could have been addressed prior to the external repairs being completed. This meant that the resident was left in a property with the presence of damp and mould along with a water ingress problem and the landlord did nothing to treat it while awaiting the completion of the roof works. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to act on the report of damp and mould despite being made aware of potential health risks to the resident and her son around this time.
  3. Although a damp and mould inspection was eventually carried out on 8 November 2023, the report indicated that all roof works would need to be completed prior to any internal works. The landlord said that the works recommended on that report were completed on 5 July 2024, over 14 months after the damp and mould was reported by the resident. It is understandable that some of those works would be held up by the outstanding roofing works. However, the landlord could have taken some steps to address the damp and mould, such as providing a dehumidifier to reduce the excess moisture until the roofing repairs could be completed. Instead, it took no action at all and allowed the continued presence of damp and mould in the resident’s property for an unacceptable period of time. This is a significant service failing by the landlord, which added to the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing delays in the completion of the roofing works.
  4. Ultimately, the landlord failed to address the leak and the damp and mould issues in a reasonable or timely manner. It took 17 months to carry out any notable roofing repairs, with a full repair not being carried out until over 2 years after the report. It failed to take any meaningful action to address the damp and mould reports prior to completion of those works. The resident chased the landlord throughout and even when it was made aware of medical issues and vulnerabilities, the landlord still failed to take adequate steps to ensure the completion of these vital works. The landlord insisted on the use of a contractor, despite being aware of significant delays and concerns around poor workmanship. The eventual work was carried out by the landlord’s in house repair staff, which shows that had it taken more ownership of this issue, this could have been completed much sooner. Had it done so, the resident and her family could have been spared significant frustration, distress and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord did make an offer of £700 compensation for the delays but it is the view of this Service that this was not proportionate in addressing the overall complaint and the service failings identified given the extent of the delays and the likely impact on the resident and her household conditions. After considering the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration.
  6. The Ombudsman recently completed an investigation into the landlord (under case reference 202201953) where we ordered a review under paragraph 54g of our Scheme for it to ensure pro-active monitoring of repairs and effective contractor management. A similar order will therefore not be repeated here.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

  1. The initial complaint was recorded by the landlord on 16 May 2023. This was raised by the councillor, following an email from the resident’s brother on 26 April 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy utilised an initial “problem solving” stage, rather than a formal stage 1 complaint. After this is unsuccessful in addressing a complaint, it should then utilise the formal process and acknowledge the complaint being at stage 2, providing the resident with a response within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s records show no acknowledgement letter being sent to the resident to advise of the formal complaint process beginning, with its first formal complaint response not being issued until 38 working days after it was recorded. Despite there being an inspection on 1 June 2023, there is no apparent reason for the time taken to send the stage 2 response on 7 July 2023. This is a service failing as the landlord did not act in line with its policy and showed no urgency in providing its response.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response did acknowledge its failings given the time since the initial leak report and indicated that it would prioritise the repairs. However, no actual timeframe was proposed and the resident was effectively left in the same position she had been for the previous year, awaiting the completion of the required works.    
  4. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 13 September 2023, as there had not been any progress on the repairs. The resident also questioned the level of compensation offered. The landlord’s complaint policy says that the stage 3 (CEO review) stage should lead to a formal response being issued in 20 working days. The landlord provided its response on 25 October 2023, some 31 working days later.
  5. The landlord’s stage 3 response did acknowledge further failings in its management of the required works and outlined a timeframe for completion. It said that following the works, it would carry out a further inspection to check for any further repairs that could be required and increased its compensation offer.
  6. Given its response, it would have been expected that the landlord would ensure the completion of those works and carry out any necessary post inspections to ensure that the issue was fully resolved. However, as noted previously, this did not happen and the resident experienced a collapsed ceiling a few weeks later, with the cause being identified as the roof.  
  7. It is clear that the landlord failed to provide any additional oversight or apply any level of priority to the required works after the stage 3 complaint response.  The landlord’s records instead show numerous instances of the resident’s mother chasing the completion of the works, requesting call backs which were not actioned and a confusion about what works would be done and who would complete them. Having acknowledged its service failings within the complaint responses, the landlord should have shown learnings from it, as per the Ombudsman’s Principles of Dispute Resolution. It is the view of the Ombudsman that it failed to show these learnings as the service offered between December 2023 and the completion of the works on 19 June 2024 was consistent with that offered previously.   
  8. In considering the management of the resident’s complaints, the landlord did provide responses that demonstrated investigation of the complaint and acknowledged its previous failings. However, it failed to show active management of the works it proposed to do within those responses to address the key issues. The landlord failed to show any learnings from the complaint as the service offered to the resident continued in the same manner with unnecessary delays, a lack of oversight of agreed works and a lack of any active communication with the resident. After considering the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roofing repairs and associated damp and mould reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the chief executive or relevant senior manager of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.
  2. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a post-inspection following the recent works with a full report produced on its findings. This should ensure that all leaks and possible causes of damp and mould are now repaired and that all remedial works have been completed to a good standard. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident within 14 days of the post-inspection, including a timescale for any works that it finds to be outstanding.
  3. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £3,200 to the resident (inclusive of the £700 award it proposed through its complaints process), made up of:
    1. £3,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of roofing repairs and associated damp and mould reports;
    2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaints.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.