Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Newcastle City Council (202317600)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317600

Newcastle City Council

10 March 2025

 

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about dust from a demolition site.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the time of her complaint. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her. The landlord responded to a complaint from the resident’s husband who acted as her representative. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident, and her husband, as ‘the resident’.
  2. In June 2023, the landlord demolished a building near the resident’s property. Around that time (the exact date is unclear) the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the amount of dust created by the demolition. She said that dust got inside her property and covered her solar panels. She asked it to ensure the same did not happen when it demolished another building nearby. She also asked it to reimburse her for the costs of cleaning her car while the demolition was ongoing.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a response on 4 July 2023, and apologised for the delay. It said its contractor had used a “water suppression system” to limit the dust from the demolition. When it received complaints from other residents about dust it cleaned cars, windows, and guttering. It said it would have washed the resident’s car had she complained at the time, but was unwilling to reimburse her retrospectively. It said it would wash the front of the resident’s property, and the solar panels.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2023 and said she was unhappy with its response. She said the contractor did not use a water suppression system and more should have been done to minimise the dust and had to spend 8 hours cleaning the inside of her property. She asked it to clean the front and back of the property. She asked it to explain what “safeguards” it was putting in place for the upcoming demolition of another property. She said that the excessive amounts of dust had caused her breathing difficulties.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023, and did not uphold her complaint. It gave an explanation of all the dust reduction measures its contractor had taken. It said it was satisfied that the measures it took were “effective” but dust was not contained within the site boundary. It said it was going to look into an “alternative method” for the upcoming demolition including its dust and debris containment methods.
  6. It apologised for the time the resident spent cleaning her property. It said its contractor had responded to all complaints about dust at the time and had arranged for cleaning of the areas of concern. It said it had not received reports of dust within the resident’s property at the time, and would have “acted appropriately” had she reported it. It apologised for the resident’s concern about her health, but said that it could not comment on her breathing difficulties as there “may be other influencing factors” that could be causing the issue.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its procedure on 21 July 2023. She disputed its claim that water suppression was used and had video evidence to prove it. She said it had not yet washed the front of the property, but had done the solar panels and windows. She said its complaints process caused “confusion” as it had issued an “informal” response and shown a “lack of accountability”.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2023, and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It explained it did not have CCTV footage of the site, and was unable to provide meter readings for the water meter as it used water tanks. It apologised for the that dust had got into the resident’s property, and I understood the exterior had now been cleaned fully. It offered to do a one off clean of the inside of the resident’s property.
  9. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate on 15 August 2023. She said she was concerned about the impact of the dust on her health due to experiencing breathing difficulties. She was also worried about the upcoming demolition and the impact of more dust getting into her property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about dust from a demolition site

  1. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the dust from the demolition impacted her health and she had breathing difficulties afterwards. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  2. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
  3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint on 4 July 2023 outlined its position on the dust suppression measures it used. It set out what it would do to try and put things right by offering to clean the outside of the resident’s property. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took her concerns seriously. It also set out its position that it was not prepared to retrospectively pay for the costs of cleaning her car, and said it would have cleaned her car at the time had she raised the concern. The resident did not dispute the landlord’s claim, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude she did not raise this matter at the time. The resident was evidently disappointed the landlord to not offer to reimburse her for costs of car cleaning. However, its position was communicated with clarity and was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord’s response of 4 July 2023 failed to address the resident’s concerns about an upcoming demotion of a nearby building. This was unreasonable and lacked learning. The landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident and build trust. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the landlord did not address her concerns.
  5. The landlord cleaned the exterior of the resident’s property sometime in July 2023. It has not provided evidence of what it did or when this was done. This is a failing in its record keeping. The resident did not dispute it did some cleaning, but expressed dissatisfaction, in her stage 2 complaint, that it had not completed all of the cleaning it said it would. Given the lack of available evidence, it is not possible to determine what cleaning it did. From the evidence available it appears the landlord did return to do further cleaning. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise this matter again to get a more thorough clean done.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out in detail what dust suppression measure its contractor took. This was appropriate and we have seen evidence it investigated the matter by seeking a thorough explanation from its contractor. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It also used its complaint response to set out the actions it had taken at the time when it received complaints about dust. It explained it would have taken the same action for the resident, but she had not reported concerns at the time. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident disputed this.
  7. The landlord used its complaint process to offer further cleaning to try and put right the evident inconvenience the matter had caused. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It also set out that it was reviewing its processes ahead of the upcoming demolition to reduce the impact on residents. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to learn from the outcomes of the case.
  8. The landlord also used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position on the resident’s concerns about her health. It explained it could not comment as other factors may also be affecting her health. While this position was not unreasonable, that it did not set out how the resident could pursue a claim against its liability insurer, or advise her to seek independent advice was a shortcoming in its response. It must provide these details now.
  9. When the resident made her stage 2 complaint she said the landlord had not completed all the cleaning it said it would. As outlined above, the landlord has not provided evidence of the cleaning it did complete. Given the concerns raised by the resident, it is reasonable to conclude it did not. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not address the issue in any detail, which was inappropriate. It is noted that it said all the cleaning was now done, and we have seen no evidence the resident disputed this. However, that it did not apologise or acknowledge for the inconvenience caused by the matter was a further shortcoming in its response.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response further outlined its position on the dust control measures it took. It responded to the resident’s specific queries and outlined its position on the photographic and video evidence she provided. This is evidence it thoroughly investigated her concerns and outlined its position. It is noted that the resident disputed that water suppression was used as the landlord claimed. It is not possible for us to determine which claim is correct, and our role is to assess how the landlord responded to her concerns. The evidence we have seen shows the landlord thoroughly investigated her concerns and passed on the findings of its investigation to the resident. This was thorough and transparent.
  11. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to offer to clean the inside of the resident’s property. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took her concerns seriously. This went some way to putting right the inconvenience she experienced. It was also appropriate to apologise for the inconvenience she experienced at having to do extra cleaning. That it did not offer her redress for the accepted inconvenience she experienced was inappropriate.
  12. Considering the nature of demolition work it is reasonable to expect that neighbouring properties will experience some level of disruption. A landlord cannot reasonably be expected to ensure that no dust escapes the site whatsoever. However, we would expect to see evidence the landlord took reasonable steps to reduce the impact on neighbouring residents by implementing procedures to reduce dust and overall impact. The evidence we have seen shows the landlord took such measures in this case.
  13. It accepted the resident was inconvenienced by the dust, and was evidently distressed at the condition her property was left in due to the dust. It offered some redress in the form of extra cleaning and an offer to clean inside the resident’s property. This went some way to putting things right. However, that it did not offer financial redress for the accepted inconvenience the resident experienced was inappropriate. We have determined there service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  14. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where an offer of redress does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. As such we have determined an order for £100 is appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. It is not possible to determine the exact date the resident first made her complaint, as this is not contained within the evidence provided. However, the landlord accepted its response of 4 July 2023 was late, and apologised. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident. Given the events complaint about occurred in mid June 2023, it is reasonable to conclude that overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The landlord’s first complaint response of 4 July 2023 was sent as an “informal” complaint response. This was inappropriate and a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord’s response did not set out that it was a complaint response, what stage the complaint was at, or how the resident could escalate her complaint. This was not in line with the approach mandated by our Code, and a failing in its complaint handling that caused an inconvenience. The landlord’s approach effectively created 3 stage complaints procedure. The inclusion of a third stage in the complaints process created a protracted process for the resident, which caused an inconvenience. The landlord inappropriately went outside of its complaint procedure by creating a 3 stage process, this was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord sent the resident’s its stage 1 complaint response 13 working days after she expressed dissatisfaction with its informal response. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, and the Code. That the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response was inappropriate. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 13 working days after she made her stage 2 complaint. This was within the timescales set out in its procedure and the Code which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling, which was appropriate. It accepted it had sent an “informal” response on 4 July 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the fact it had operated outside its policy. This was unreasonable and lacked transparency. That it did not offer redress for inconvenience caused by the creation of a protracted 3 stage process was inappropriate.
  7. Considering the above failings we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where errors cause a short duration of detriment to the resident. The above applied in this case and we have determined an order for £75 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about dust from a demolition site.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £175 in compensation, made up of:
      1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about dust from a demolition site.
      2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.