Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202508806)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2016. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. In September 2023, he reported issues with damp and mould in his property. The landlord has a record that the resident has dyslexia. The resident also reported that he suffers from COPD. The complaint was brought through the landlord’s complaint procedure with assistance from his brother and to us by a representative from Civil Advice. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and his representatives as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of property damage.
   3. Request for a property transfer.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration with the landlord’s reports of property damage.
6. The landlord’s response to a request for a property transfer is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
7. There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about damp and mould repairs and it failed to demonstrate due regard for his vulnerability. The landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable time and failed to carry out an inspection of the completed works. These failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
9. The landlord failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s reports of property damage and failed to assist the resident in pursuing reimbursement for damages. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.
10. The landlord’s response to requests for a property transfer does not fall under our jurisdiction.
11. The landlord failed to identify and address a complaint issue, it failed to provide its complaint responses within the Codes timescales, and it failed to track agreed actions as a resolution to the complaint. This caused further frustration to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

12. 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
13. With regards damp and mould, its repairs policy states that it will:
    1. Carry out a mould wash within 3 working days of a report.
    2. Inspect the property to assess the type of damp, potential causes, and any repairs Required.
    3. A building technician will produce a scope of works and arrange repairs.
    4. Offer guidance
14. On 29 September 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in his bedroom and bathroom. The landlord attended and carried out a mould was on 5 October 2023. This was slightly beyond its timescales.
15. The landlord did not get access to the property on 15 November 2023 but subsequently attended on 29 November 2023 and scoped the remedial works. Its records show that it carried out an asbestos survey on 5 December 2023. The evidence shows that follow-on works were not raised until after the resident raised a complaint on 9 January 2024. This was a service failing by the landlord.
16. The resident complained that windows in the flat above his had been left open for several months following a fire. He said that this had caused the damp and mould in his property. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 February 2024 and confirmed that his property was habitable. It explained that the tenant of the flat had been displaced and they had difficulty arranging access. The landlord subsequently arranged to gain access to close the windows in February 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
17. On 13 February 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that the planned works were arranged for 28 May 2024. Internal emails show that the planned works were beyond its timescales of 40 working days because of the multiple trades needed to carry out the works. While this was reasonable, there was no evidence that the landlord explained the reason for the delay to the resident.
18. The works could not be carried out on 28 May 2024. The landlord’s records state that “operatives were turned away at time of visit as customer requested support with the removal and storage of furniture”. The resident advised us that the landlord said it would contact him to arrange storage of his furniture before repairs began, however no arrangements were made before the operatives turned up.
19. The landlord has written guidance for residents for planned works. It states that it will provide advice about which items of furniture, carpets or belongings need moved before works begin. This advice states “if you are unable to move these items please contact your Customer Care Officer for help and advice”. Based on the evidence provided to us, it is not clear if this guidance was provided to the resident before the landlord attended to carry out the planned works.
20. It must be considered that the resident is dyslexic and the landlord was aware of this disability before arranging repairs. The only evidence showing that the resident was notified of the repair start date was a letter on 13 February 2024. The same letter said that it would be in touch with the resident with a detailed plan of works and that it would support the resident during the works if needed. However, there was no evidence of any further contact with the resident before the works were due to begin. This was unreasonable.
21. In these circumstances, the landlord should have considered the resident’s vulnerability and made arrangements to ensure that the resident was aware of the repair start date and to ensure the resident understood its guidance for planned works. This failing caused distress to the resident and further delay in completing the repairs.
22. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act.
23. The landlord subsequently completed the repairs between 25 November 2024 and 4 December 2024. This was 12 months after it agreed to do the works and significantly beyond the landlord’s timescales of 40 working days for planned works.
24. On 5 December 2024, 6 December 2024, and 11 December 2024, the resident reported that the landlord had not carried out agreed works and he was not happy with the quality of the works. There was no evidence that the landlord reattended to assess the quality of the works or confirmed if the agreed works were completed. This was inappropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident.
25. The resident reported to us that plaster board and skirting was fitted on top of his carpet which left a gap. He said that the gap caused damp to enter the property. If the landlord had returned to inspect the works it could have assessed this issue to see if work needed to be rectified and advised the resident accordingly.
26. When the resident raised his complaint on 21 January 2025, he reported that damp and mould had returned to the property. He reported that he had recently been diagnosed with COPD. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities it would have been reasonable to call the resident to discuss complaint issues before providing a stage 1 complaint response, there is no evidence that it did so. The landlord failed to identify the return of damp and mould as part of the resident’s complaint and as such did not include this issue in its complaint responses. This was inappropriate.
27. After the resident received his stage 1 complaint response, he called the landlord on 7 February 2025 and again reported that damp and mould had returned. He agreed to carry out a mould wash himself. The landlord inspected the property on 12 February 2025. It found the property to be habitable. There was low level mould around the skirting boards and it made recommendations to install an external drain and an internal fan and PIV system. Based on the evidence provided, it is not clear if these works have taken place and when the resident brought his complaint to us, he said that damp remains an issue in the property. This failing caused distress to the resident who reported health concerns after a diagnosis of COPD.
28. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the works reduced the size of the resident’s windows which meant that some blinds no longer fitted. The landlord apologised and offered to replace the blinds. This was reasonable in the circumstances. In its stage 2 response, it offered £100 for the resident to purchase window nets because the resident declined the offer of replacement blinds. When the resident brought his complaint to us, he said that further works were required because windowsills required replacement before the blinds could be fitted. The evidence indicates that replacement windowsills had been raised as a repair but it is unclear if these works have taken place.

29. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
30. On 11 December 2024, the resident reported that his television had been damaged by the removal contractor and his carpets were damaged after the works. The landlord did not respond to this report until the resident raised a complaint. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have communicated its position with regards to the damaged TV and signposted the resident to make an insurance claim if appropriate. It should have inspected the residents carpet and made good any damage if it was responsible. That it carried out no investigation and provided no response to the resident until he raised a complaint was inappropriate and caused frustration to the resident.
31. On 21 January 2025, the resident complained that his TV was returned damaged and the storage company only offered to pay £200 which did not cover the cost of the TV. The resident asked the landlord to confirm who is responsible for the damage. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that the removals company made an offer of £200 as a goodwill gesture because they could not prove that the TV was working upon collection. While this was evidence that the landlord carried out enquiries with the removals company it did not provide the resident with any guidance or signpost the resident to make a claim against its insurer or the contractors insurer.
32. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it would investigate its policy with the removals company with regards to damaged goods and advise what options are available to him. The resident advised us that he has not received any further contact from the landlord about his property damage. No evidence has been provided to us to confirm the landlord investigated its policies or provided any further correspondence with the resident in respect of his damaged TV. There was no evidence that it liaised further with the removals company in respect of its insurance to assist the resident, which was an action the resident asked for in his complaint escalation. This was unreasonable.
33. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the residents reports of damaged carpet. At a minimum it should have inspected the carpet to consider if it was liable to repair, replace, or compensate the resident. Its failure to take any action was unreasonable. The resident reported frustration at having to continually report issues to the landlord without receiving a reply. The evidence indicates that the landlord failed to properly investigate the resident’s reports of property damage and failed to take reasonable steps to assist him.

34. We may not consider matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Part of the resident’s complaint refers to his housing application and the allocation and lettings process. These matters are administered by the landlord as a local authority rather than under its landlord function and therefore fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this element of her complaint, he should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

35. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
36. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was 1 working day beyond its timescales and its stage 2 complaint response was 10 working days beyond its timescales. While it is sometimes the case that a landlord will require further time to complete a complaint investigation the Code is clear that the reason should be explained to the resident. This was a service failing.
37. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not contact the resident to discuss the complaint issues before providing its stage 1 complaint response. The resident complained that damp and mould had returned to the property which was not addressed as part of the complaint. This failing was particularly detrimental to the resident as he should have had an opportunity to discuss his complaint, especially considering his vulnerability.
38. The Code sets out that after the complaint response is provided, outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. The landlord said that it would check its policies with the removal contractor with regards to property damage and advise the resident what options maybe available to him. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that the landlord followed through with this action. This failing caused frustration to the resident in pursuing reimbursement for his damaged TV.

Learning

Communication

39. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
40. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord appropriately contacted the resident before works began. Furthermore, the evidence shows it did not inspect the works after completion. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.