Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202523510)

Background

1. The resident lives with her child. She informed the landlord about suspected water leak from the roof and associated damp and mould in her home. The resident was not happy with its handling of the issues and delays with effective repairs. The resident and her child have health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of a water leak and related damp and mould in her property
   2. Complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak and related damp and mould in her property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. In summary we found that:

In the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and related damp and mould in her property

1. The landlord did not inspect and carry out identified works in keeping with its repair policies.
2. The landlord failed to effectively identify the cause of the issues, which prolonged the repairs to the property.
3. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident and keep her updated.
4. The landlord did not take the resident’s health vulnerabilities into account to inform its approach.

In the complaint handling

      c. The landlord did not address all issues in its complaint responses.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

5. The resident told us she had been reporting a water leak from the roof, and related damp and mould, since 2023. We can only investigate complaints referred to us within 12 months, and there is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about these issues before 2025, other than service requests.
6. However, because the complaint referred to us concerns the same issues that the resident reported to the landlord between 2023 and 2024, we will refer to that information for context. We will assess the landlord’s actions from the resident’s complaint of 28 May 2025 and the 12 months prior to this.
7. The resident described the impact the situation had on her and her family’s health, and the damage to personal belongings. We can consider how the situation affected her and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or the courts and therefore fall outside this investigation. Any compensation is assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.

What we did investigate

8. This report refers to ‘T-falls’, a term used by the resident and landlord, which describes the joint between the ceiling and adjoining wall, forming a T-shape.
9. The landlord’s repair policy states that when a resident reports damp and mould, it will undertake a thorough clean of the surfaces affected within 3 working days. It will then inspect the property to assess the type of damp, possible causes and repairs needed. If necessary, it will arrange temporary accommodation while repairs are completed.
10. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It also states that it must, by law, fix urgent problems that could affect a resident’s health, safety or security within a set period. The policy requires it to attend to a leaking roof within 7 working days.
11. The repair policy also states that major works may need a planning visit before starting. And that major repairs should be completed within 90 working days.
12. We have seen evidence that the resident advised the landlord of a water leak from the roof on 1 September and 29 November 2023. The contractor attended these jobs on 10 October 2023 and 29 February 2024.
13. The resident reported damp and mould on the ceiling and tops of the walls in the bathroom and bedroom several times in 2023 and 2024. The landlord carried out mould washes on 20 November 2023 and 8 May 2024.
14. The landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection, carried out on 15 February 2024. The inspection identified the need for repairs in the bathroom, including renewing the T-fall sections of the ceiling, and installing an extractor fan.
15. The landlord’s contractor completed additional mould washes on 8 May and 20 September 2024 at the resident’s request.
16. The resident reported a roof water leak again into the bedroom on 20 September 2024 and requested another mould wash down. The landlord raised a works order to investigate the front of the property. This contractor attended on 10 October 2024, missing the required timescale for roof leaks. The contractor changed a tile and advised that the T-falls required further inspection.
17. A contractor attended on 6 December 2024 to assess the damp and mould in the bedroom. They identified further works and added them to the bathroom repair job list.
18. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times in January 2025 to chase the bathroom and bedroom repairs. She also reported that damp and mould had spread to the main bedroom. On 15 January 2025, the landlord responded and told her the works were still waiting to be scheduled. It explained that they might have been delayed because additional bedroom works had been added to the original bathroom order. This was unreasonable and did not comply with the landlord’s repair policy. There is no evidence the landlord investigated why this delay occurred and how it could ensure this does not happen in future.
19. The resident reported further water leaks on 15 January 2025. While we note that the landlord made enquiries with the roofing team, the resident chased updates 4 times in March and April 2025. She also told the landlord that the mould was affecting her daughter’s health. The landlord should have been more proactive in responding to the resident. On 1 and 16 April 2025, the landlord informed her that the planned internal repair works had still not been booked. The landlord did not respond to the concerns the resident raised about her health being impacted by damp and mould.
20. On 9 May 2025, the resident chased the landlord again, explaining that water entered the property throughout when it rained.
21. The works identified in the bathroom on 15 February 2024 did not begin until 20 May 2025. This delay was unreasonable and did not comply with the landlord’s damp and mould or repairs policy. The landlord did not install and complete the bathroom extractor fan until 4 July 2025.
22. On 20 May 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that the bedroom works had not been completed alongside the bathroom repairs as planned. The landlord explained that duplicate work packs had been generated when the bathroom was inspected in February 2024, and the bedroom in December 2024, causing the landlord confusion over which jobs had been raised and actioned.
23. This reflects further record-keeping failures and was insufficient to explain the 5-month delay to the bedroom repairs being actioned at this stage. Once this had been highlighted to the landlord, we would have expected it to prioritise the works in line with its repair policy. We have seen evidence that the landlord was aware on 28 July 2025 that a works order for the bedroom repairs had still not been raised. Although the landlord communicated at times, the resident had to chase repeatedly and wait for call-backs. Internally, poor recording and coordination extended response times and demonstrated the need for clearer communication protocols.
24. The landlord sent a contractor to inspect the resident’s roof on 28 May 2025. The contractor found no work was needed but said the T-falls required further inspection. Under its policy, the landlord should have inspected the roof within 7 working days of receiving reports of a leak. It did not explain the delay. The landlord has not provided evidence of this inspection report.
25. We recognise that the landlord undertook mould washes in response to the resident’s reports of mould. This, used in conjunction with good practice to manage moisture levels, can be an effective tool to prevent the spread of mould. Landlords must deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould, not simply treat the symptoms. Throughout the complaint the resident said that mould had spread or returned to previously treated areas. This suggests the landlord had not previously identified the cause of the damp and mould.
26. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that the extractor fan would be completed on 3 and 4 July 2025, and that it would book in the additional bedroom repairs. It confirmed no roof works were required and that its contractor would contact her about inspecting the T-falls.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 June 2025 because the contractor had not contacted her as promised and repairs were still outstanding.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that its contractor found no further roof work necessary on the roof and said it had completed the T-fall repairs in the bathroom on 20 May 2025. It did not address the T-fall repairs needed in the bedroom. These repairs were not completed until 17 September 2025. This was unreasonable and further evidence the landlord failed to meet its repair policy timescales.
29. The resident reported wet roof insulation and holes on 20 August 2025. The landlord sent a contractor on 27 August 2025, who again determined no work was required. While the landlord reasonably relied on its contractor’s expertise at each inspection, it did not provide us with evidence of what the roof inspections involved.
30. The resident referred her complaint to us and her local councillor in September 2025. She said that previous inspections were not thorough, stating that contractors had not used ladders and had inspected only from the gate outside her property. She also said the house did not retain heat and that she feared the mould and cold were affecting her family’s existing health conditions.
31. The resident repeatedly reported roof leaks, damp, and mould in September and October 2025. A contractor attended on 24 September 2025, but the records did not show what work was done. The landlord sent a contractor to inspect the roof again on 2 October 2025, and on 19 November 2025 it approved a full roof replacement. The resident informed us this was completed on 19 January 2026.
32. The landlord attended the property in February and December 2024 to undertake damp and mould inspections and was therefore aware of the extent of the issues at the time. During these inspections, mould was found in the bedroom and bathroom. Having been informed of the recommended remedial works, the landlord should have undertaken these promptly. However, it failed to act on these. Indeed, the evidence shows that no remedial works commenced until May 2025 and were not completed internally until September 2025.
33. While the landlord did inspect and complete mould washes, to mitigate the impact of the housing conditions on the resident, there is no evidence that further thought was given to what caused the issue. This led to the resident chasing repeatedly and making further reports of mould and roof water ingress. This would not have given the resident confidence that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously. We have not been provided with evidence of the roof inspection reports made in May and August 2025. So it is not possible to determine if appropriate investigations were carried out to identify the source the leak and cause of damp and mould.
34. Our spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. They should treat it as a high priority, ensure they identify complex cases at an early stage. And ensure that their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
35. The report also highlights that people living in homes with damp and mould may be more likely to have respiratory problems, including asthma. Damp and mould is also one of the hazards listed in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the landlord has an obligation to take action to minimise or remove identified hazards.
36. Our Spotlight report also 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 household was left exposed to damp and mould for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to co-ordinate remedial works promptly. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident was likely to be more significant given the fact she occupied the property with a child with health conditions.
37. It is noted the landlord was informed on 2 January 2025 that the resident and her child had respiratory health conditions. It is therefore concerning that the landlord did not use the information it held about the resident’s health conditions to inform its approach. Particularly after the resident advised her child’s health had worsened requiring medical intervention. The resident explained on several occasions that she felt the mould in the property adversely affected hers and her children’s health.
38. It was particularly disappointing for the resident that after the landlord apologised, and committed to carry out the works, it then failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable time. This undermined the resident’s faith in the landlord’s complaints process and further damaged the landlord tenant relationship. It also showed that the learning identified from the complaint had not been adopted to prevent further delays.
39. We therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and related damp and mould. It did not take sufficient steps to investigate and fix the water ingress in the roof, which is likely to have contributed to the damp and mould that the resident had first reported in 2023. The landlord should have prioritised its investigations and repair work due to the resident and her family’s health vulnerabilities.
40. While we acknowledge the significant adverse impact on the resident of the presence of damp and mould in her home, no evidence has been provided to indicate that the rooms were uninhabitable for the time that the works were outstanding. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot make a finding that a room was uninhabitable, as we do not have the evidence to assess this.
41. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £1500 in compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to the significant delays in the landlord completing effective repairs. This amount complies with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

42. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
43. The landlord has a published complaint’s policy which complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
44. The resident made her complaint on 28 May 2025, but we have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. This may suggest a record-keeping issue.
45. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on time. It apologised to the resident for her experience, but its response did not appropriately address the fact that inspection works identified on 10 October 2024 for the T-falls had not been actioned until 20 May 2025. This delay was not acknowledged or explained. Bedroom repairs had also been identified on 6 December 2024 but not booked in, and yet the delays to these repairs were also not addressed in the response. Our Code makes clear the landlord should respond to all concerns raised.
46. Under its compensation policy, the landlord should have offered the resident some form of compensation for the delay and inconvenience she experienced.
47. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 June 2025 to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this as a stage 2 complaint on time and issued its stage 2 response on 17 July 2025, in line with the Code.
48. The stage 2 response did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord confirmed that it completed the bathroom T-fall works on 20 May 2025, it did not address the outstanding T-falls inspection or the bedroom works referenced in the stage 1 response. The landlord also did not set out in its complaint responses that it had considered the impact the delays had on the household and the residents’ health vulnerabilities.
49. Because these issues remained unresolved, the resident continued to contact the landlord after the stage 2 response, and we understand, raised another complaint in September 2025 about the same matters.
50. In relation to the resident’s personal items damaged by mould, while this was not strictly raised in her formal complaint, she informed the landlord of this during her communications. The landlord told us it had advised her to make a claim on its insurance, but we did not see any evidence of this. In its complaint responses, it should have advised her to claim under her own content’s insurance, or, given her details of its own to enable her to pursue a claim.
51. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered the resident compensation for its delays and for failing to acknowledge and address all relevant issues in its complaint responses. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its inadequate complaint responses. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Learning

52. The landlord told us it first became aware of the resident’s health concerns on 30 September 2025. However, evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord of her health vulnerabilities in an email on 2 January 2025. The landlord should ensure it correctly records resident’s vulnerabilities, especially when they relate to damp and mould issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

53. It was not always possible to determine what work the contractor had completed when we reviewed the landlord’s works orders. Landlords must keep clear, accurate, and accessible records to create a reliable audit trail. When we investigate a complaint, we request these records. If evidence is disputed and no audit trail exists, we may be unable to confirm whether the landlord carried out an action or followed its policies and procedures.

Communication

54. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates numerous times which prolonged the process. The landlord should provide residents with regular updates about repair and inspection dates to help manage expectations about the purpose and nature of each visit.