Newcastle City Council (202321839)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321839

Newcastle City Council

30 April 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 reports of disrepair, including damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority and employs a housing management organisation to act on its behalf. For clarity, this report will refer to both the landlord and its management organisation as “the landlord”. The tenancy began on 21 December 2009. The property is a 3-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident lived at the property with her 3 children at the time of her complaint. The landlord has advised it has recorded the resident to have a vulnerability for mental health issues.
  2. The resident experienced a leak under the flooring of the property in 2021, the landlord’s repair records indicate damp was also reported in 2021. Limited information was provided by the landlord prior to the resident making a complaint in March 2023, other than repair records, however the evidence provided indicated a separate complaint was made regarding the leak and damage to furniture in 2022. A damp survey report dated 6 January 2023 was also provided which reported some walls to have damp and recommended an extensive list of works.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 20 March 2023 regarding the issues she had experienced with repairs to her home. The resident was unhappy that she had to chase repairs up and that repairs were consistently measured for but not completed. Within her complaint she said 2 of her children had medical issues. She referenced some repairs which were still outstanding, these included:
    1. A portaloo being left outside her property after works had been completed.
    2. A bedroom door which was reported 2 years ago.
    3. Repairs in the kitchen and bathroom.
    4. Bags of rubbish left outside.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 April 2023. This included:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the bags of rubbish that were not collected following works being completed on 14 November 2022. It confirmed the bags had now been collected.
    2. It said it would provide a date for the works to be done following the damp survey.
    3. It agreed to a list of bathroom works and would be in touch with dates for the work to take place.
    4. It apologised for the unnecessary delays and poor communication.
  5. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 21 September 2023 as not all the works had been completed, and she was unhappy with the standard of some of the completed works.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023 after visiting the property on 16 October 2023. This included:
    1. It said “several matters” caused concern.
    2. It offered £200 for the delay and distress experienced.
    3. It had requested the fan in the kitchen be “powered up” following a high humidity reading.
    4. It acknowledged and apologised for the resident’s experience in getting repairs completed and said all work would be overseen and scheduled in, in future, with the resident.
    5. It acknowledged the delay in completing damp works and the outstanding works following this.
  7. Evidence was provided following the stage 2 response which indicated the resident requested her complaint be reopened on 22 April 2024 as some works were still outstanding. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 22 June 2024, as she remained unhappy with the length of time repairs took the landlord and commented that she felt the landlord only took action once she started to email, despite her making several phone calls.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Evidence has been seen that shows the resident has said she considers that the property condition impacted her wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the property condition and the households wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health, or that of her family, has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which may have been experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
  2. Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs, it is noted.

Disrepair, damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take sufficient and reasonable action to get repairs resolved in a reasonable timeframe. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, external and internal walls. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) classes damp and mould as a category 1 hazard. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove identified hazards.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This would include internal walls, floors and plasterwork.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy includes expected completion timescales for different types of repairs. It confirms that emergency repairs should be attended to within 4 hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within 1, 3 or 7 working days depending on urgency. Routine repairs should be completed within 15 working days and planned maintenance should be completed within 40 working days. Its policy says repairs to plasterwork, doors or windows would be an example of routine repairs.
  4. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It also states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. The landlord advised the Ombudsman as part of a separate case, (202128122), that following the spotlight report it created a dedicated cross-directorate damp and mould team. This team was reported to have been in place since November 2022 and would ensure its approach to damp and mould was customer focussed and consistent.
  5. It does not seem to be in dispute that the resident reported damp and mould issues at her property. However, from the information available, it is unclear precisely when the resident first raised these concerns. While the landlord has provided a damp and mould survey report from January 2023, this Service has not seen any records which clarify when and how the issue was first reported. The landlord is therefore unable to evidence it responded to the resident’s reports appropriately and investigated the issues she raised in a timely manner. It is noted that internal emails from the landlord indicate some works were cancelled by the resident however no records have been provided which demonstrates the landlord’s follow up to cancelled jobs, this is a suspected record keeping error, nevertheless is not reasonable.
  6. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information relevant to the resident’s complaint, including contact notes and repair reports. Limited information was received which did not include comprehensive repair logs, detailing the outcome of each visit to the property, or communication logs, detailing communication between both parties. It is best practice for landlords to have processes in place to log communication received from residents both via email and over the phone. This is usually in the form of call notes, which detail when contact was made, what was said by both parties and what the agreed expectations were following the call. The landlord has not provided comprehensive evidence of the resident’s reports of repair issues prior to her making a complaint. In this case the resident advised she made multiple calls to the landlord to try and arrange the repairs, it is not reasonable that the landlord has not provided a record of these. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  7. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that the resident was due to be decanted for some of the works to commence and the works were delayed as the resident did not want to move out. The landlord has provided no records of discussing a potential decant with the resident, it cannot therefore demonstrate that it managed the resident’s expectations or these repairs effectively. It would be expected that a clear, documented action plan would be shared with the resident if a decant was required, this allows a landlord to manage a resident’s expectations but also gives the landlord the opportunity to identify any risk factors that it may not have been aware of previously.
  8. Poor record keeping has impacted the ability of the Ombudsman to fully understand the repairs carried out at the resident’s property in this case. Its records contain multiple duplicate works orders, some which are recorded as cancelled or aborted and others completed. Its records do not adequately explain the reasons for the cancelled or aborted jobs. It is beyond dispute that some works were cancelled, notwithstanding this, the resident experienced adverse impacts, time, trouble and inconvenience, before enduring repairs were delivered.
  9. Part of the resident’s complaint included the landlord attending to “measure” on multiple occasions with no follow up to when works would be completed. This was a key part of the resident’s complaint as she felt she had to alter how she communicated with the landlord in order to get any work booked in. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it sufficiently investigated this element of the resident’s complaint, which was not reasonable, although its noted it said it would do this at a later date. Within its stage 2 complaint, the landlord advised that the resident’s journey would be “mapped” so it could learn from its “multiple failings” and understand why works were not being completed at the first visit. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to learning from the resident’s complaint, however it did not go far enough to put it right for the resident. Cumulatively, these failures amount to maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, communication, delivery, and oversight of its repairs service.
  10. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  11. Overall, the landlord did not dispute that its service fell below its expected standard, it acknowledged within its final complaint response that it had taken a time to carry out repairs and apologised for this. The landlord offered £200, for the delay and distress experienced. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings; however, the Ombudsman has identified further failures in its communication and record keeping. The landlord has therefore, been ordered to make a further payment of redress to the resident.

Complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2-stage formal complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord should issue a response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s policy at the time noted that escalation requests should be made within 20 working days of the stage 1 response. The resident requested an escalation on 21 September 2023, 119 working days following the stage 1 response. It was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion to accept the escalation as per its policy as it noted that the works were ongoing and recording a further stage 1 complaint would unnecessarily prolong the resident’s complaint.
  3. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint responses were provided in line with its policy timescales at each stage. Its responses failed to give definitive dates for the resident to expect the work to be completed, however. It is best practise for the landlord to investigate a complaint and be in a position to provide timeframes for repairs within its responses. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider this in its complaints process going forward.
  4. Taking the above into consideration, it is not evident that the landlord’s actions in handling the resident’s complaint resulted in maladministration. It followed its complaint policy timescales and applied its discretion appropriately; therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of disrepair, including damp and mould within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £500 in total, for its failures identified in its response to the residents reports of disrepair, including damp and mould.
  2. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200 for compensation related to this complaint. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide an update to the Ombudsman on its current position, considering this case, with regards to its action plan undertaken as part of case 202128122, which gave particular regard to how it will improve its communication and record keeping practices in future and put measures in place to ensure it keeps detailed communication and repair logs.
    2. Provide the Ombudsman with the resident’s journey mapped out including its learning from its “multiple failings” and its understanding why works were not being completed at the first visit, as advised in its stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales noted above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord consider its approach to providing definitive timescales or appointments for repairs within its complaint responses.