Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202544123)

Decision
Case ID	202544123
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Tenant
Date	29 June 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported multiple repairs issues relating to her bathroom, including damp and mould, to the landlord from June 2025 onwards. She had particular concerns about the safety of the bathroom due to her children’s vulnerabilities. She was unhappy with how it handled her reports so complained in September 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a.     Reports of multiple issues with her bathroom, including damp and mould.

b.     Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple issues with her bathroom.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repair issues with her bathroom

5. The landlord took some action in response to the resident’s initial repair requests, however it failed to show that it had considered the resident’s reports from October 2025 onwards in line with Awaab’s Law. In addition, repairs were unreasonably delayed and completed outside the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, its communication with the resident was poor and its response failed to address her safety concerns.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord failed to identify the resident’s stage 1 complaint in September 2025 and treat it in line with its complaints policy. When she chased it in October 2025, it then acknowledged the complaint. It went on to issue its response 2 days outside of the timeframe set out in its policy and failed to acknowledge this delay.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £700 for the distress caused to the resident and time and trouble taken by her to chase both the bathroom repairs and her complaint. £100 for the stage 1 complaint handling delays identified in this report. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 July 2026
2	Learning Order The landlord must conduct a learning lessons review of this complaint. It must review its handling of the resident’s report of hazards after 27 October 2025, when Awaab’s Law was introduced, and set out what went wrong and why in a report. The report must include recommendations on how to prevent reoccurrence of this again. The landlord must share this with the resident and us by the due date.	No later than 10 August 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 September 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of multiple repair issues in the property’s only bathroom. She said it was taking too long to complete repairs and had concerns about whether the bathroom was safe to use
27 October 2025	The resident requested to escalate her complaint as the landlord had not responded to her stage 1 complaint sent in September. She said the issues with the bathroom were still ongoing, including the damp and mould. She was concerned the bathroom was not safe to use.
29 October 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email from October as the stage 1 complaint.
12 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had completed several inspections of the bathroom and had booked repairs to the tiles and mould in the coming weeks. It also said it had treated her September complaint as a service request instead.
November/December 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. We have not seen a copy of this escalation request.
14 January 2026	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that recent inspections and works had identified further, more intrusive works were needed in the bathroom and these would now be handled as planned works going forward. It explained further inspections were needed, and once complete it would complete the required works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She felt the landlord had failed to acknowledge the severity of the bathroom issues and the impact its poor handling had on her and her household. She wanted it to complete the necessary works.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple issues with her bathroom, including damp and mould concerns
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. When the resident referred her complaint to us she said the landlord’s handling of her reports of issues with the bathroom and subsequent repairs had impacted her, and her household’s, health and wellbeing.
8. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. Nonetheless, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we investigated

9. The resident complained in September 2025 about the landlord’s delay in completing multiple urgent bathroom repairs. She said since June 2025 she had reported the wall tiles falling off, the walls were flaking, mould was coming up through the floor tiles and the sink was cracked. However repairs to each issue had yet to be carried out. She was concerned about safety, as this was the only bathroom in the property, particularly given her children’s vulnerabilities.
10. In response, the landlord accepted there were delays in arranging the repairs and apologised. It said the delays were due to the need for multiple inspections, including asbestos checks, before it could arrange repairs to be carried out in December 2025. When works were due to start, it identified the repairs were more intrusive than expected and referred them to its planned works team to take over. It said it would replace the wall and floor tiles and renew the bathroom suite, except the bathtub, in April 2026.
11. Parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable. The timeline of events it provided in its response was supported by the evidence and showed it had taken some action following the resident’s reports from June 2025 onwards. These actions included inspecting the bathroom, completing necessary safety checks for materials such as asbestos and completing a mould wash within the 21 day timeframe set out its damp and mould policy.
12. The landlord also explained that more intrusive works were only identified when repairs were due to start in December 2025. While this caused further delays and was frustrating for the resident, nothing in the evidence indicates it could or should have realised this sooner. In light of the new situation It was reasonable to pause the works to reassess and update its plans to ensure it fully remedied the reported issues. It explained this in its response and apologised, which was appropriate given the circumstances.
13. The resident had been reporting issues with damp and mould in the bathroom from June 2025 onwards. When she escalated the complaint on 27 October 2025 she said the issue was still present and possibly worsening, and she had concerns about the impact on her household’s health, particularly her children who were vulnerable. Also at this time, the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) Regulations 2025 (also known as Awaab’s Law) had come into effect on the same day.
14. In line with the new law the landlord was required (having received what was potentially a notice of a material change to the situation) to promptly assess if the mould was a significant or emergency hazard. Nothing in the evidence indicates it did. This was a failure to fully consider its obligations under Awaab’s Law.
15. The landlord completed a mould wash at the property 18 days after her escalation which showed it was taking some action to treat the issue. However, none of the evidence shows how it evaluated whether there was an emergency or significant hazard following the introduction of Awaab’s Law.
16. There were other failings in the landlord’s response. It did not acknowledge taking 121 working days from the resident’s June 2025 report to arrange a repair in December 2025. This exceeded both its 20‑day routine repairs timescale and its 90‑day timeframe for planned works. While asbestos checked were needed, it completed these and delays still occurred after. This, therefore, does not explain the full extent of the delays and it should have recognised this in its response.
17. There is also no evidence the landlord considered the reported vulnerabilities when inspecting or arranging the repairs. While it may not have impacted its repair handling, it should have at least evidenced that it had considered this. Additionally, when she complained that it had seemingly not considered these vulnerabilities when handling the repairs, it failed to respond to this element of her complaint.
18. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Since June 2025, she had to chase it for updates after inspections and on the progress of works, and often did not receive a response in return. She raised this issue in her complaint, however it failed to address this in its response. It should have acknowledged this failure in its response and offered appropriate redress.
19. Overall, the landlord took some action following the resident’s reports and reflected this in its complaint response. However, it failed to recognise key failings including delays in raising repairs, not addressing the resident’s safety concerns, not considering the vulnerabilities in the household and overall poor communication. It also failed to evidence that it assessed her new reports of damp and mould in line with Awaab’s Law.
20. While the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in its repair handling it did not offer any compensation to the resident in response to her complaint. Given the failings identified above we have ordered it to pay the resident £700 compensation to reflect the distress caused and the time and trouble she has taken to chase the repairs and her complaint. This amount is in line with its compensation guidance as well at the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration of the scale and nature found here.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

21. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a two stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 escalations within 20 working days. It states that a complaint does not need to explicitly state it is such, and can be a general dissatisfaction with a landlord’s handling of an issue.
22. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
23. The resident emailed her expression of dissatisfaction on 25 September 2025 about repairs it was already aware of and addressing. Counter to its policy the landlord treated this as a service request but did not explain this or its reasons to the resident. This led her to chase and request escalation in October 2025, having received no stage 1 response. It then incorrectly raised this as the original complaint.
24. Additionally, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 2 days over the timeframe set out in its complaints policy if it considered the October email as the original complaint. While a minor delay, it failed to acknowledge this in its response.
25. We have not seen the resident’s escalation request following its stage 1 response. We have therefore been unable to assess if the landlord handled this stage in line with the timescales in its policy and the Code.
26. The landlord failed to address its complaint handling failures at stage 1 in its response and as such did not offer compensation for this. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the failings identified above, which is based on both its compensation guidance and our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. While the landlord had some good record keeping relating to repairs, overall its record keeping was poor. It failed to record the resident’s stage 2 escalation request or robust records of any communication it had her and its external contractors.
28. The landlord is reminded about the importance of keeping robust records for all repair requests, complaints and any associated communications. For further guidance we recommend it refers to our Spotlight Report on knowledge information management.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor overall. It never updated her following any inspections of the bathroom or to update on her the progress of any repairs. When the resident chased it for updates, it often never responded.
30. The landlord should ensure it takes a proactive approach in communicating with resident’s on the progress of any repairs. It should also ensure to maintain robust records of any communication it has. For further guidance we recommend it refers to our Spotlight Report on communication.