North Tyneside Council (202406712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406712

North Tyneside Council

26 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of damp in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began in February 2019. In January 2025 he purchased the property under the ‘right to buy’ scheme. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with his family, including his young children.
The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 30 November 2022. He told the landlord that:
1. He had been having damp issues in the property since 2018.
2. He felt that it had not taken his previous reports seriously.
3. He felt that it had not taken care when completing inspections at his property because plaster had been knocked off the walls onto the floor.
4. He would like to be paid compensation because it had not found the source of the leak.
5. He would like his reports of damp and mould to be prioritised.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It recognised that the resident had been having damp issues for some time but that it had still not found the source of the leak. It told the resident that it would contact him again in the new year following its visit to the property on 21 December 2022.
The resident escalated his complaint on 22 December 2022. He told the landlord that it was not treating his reports of disrepair with service priority because the works were not due to begin until February 2023. He asked it why works had not started when one of the bedrooms was unusable. He told it that the issue was worse in the wintertime and so the works needed to be prioritised.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2023. The landlord:
1. Apologised to the resident for its delay in providing its response. It acknowledged that the situation was unpleasant for the resident.
2. Said that it had historically made attempts to repair the issue by completing works to the chimney. It told the resident that it would complete works to fix the damp and that scaffolding was due to be erected on 3 February 2023 so that they could begin.
3. Told the resident that the timescales for works reflected the resources available to it and that they were being carried out as soon as possible.
4. Offered the resident £400 to “reflect the distress and inconvenience” he had experienced. It did not provide a specific breakdown of why this sum was being offered. It also offered him £60 in redecoration vouchers.
On 28 February 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 3. He told the landlord that:
1. He had waited months for the landlord’s appointed contractor to begin works. He said that the landlord then changed contractors at the last minute which pushed works back further.
2. The issue had been ongoing for years and that he did not feel like a priority for the landlord.
3. The damp was affecting his young son’s bedroom. The resident said that his 6-year-old son was having to sleep in his bed with him in the meantime.
4. He was not happy with the condition of the temporary accommodation that he had been moved into whilst the works were ongoing at his property. He said that the move had felt rushed and that the temporary accommodation was unclean.
5. He felt that the situation had been handled unprofessionally. He said that he felt that the landlord was “messing with” his family’s life and home.
The landlord provided its stage 3 complaint response on 15 April 2024. It told the resident that it would not be upholding his stage 3 complaint. It said that:
1. It felt as though the complaints had been properly investigated at stage 1 and stage 2 of the process.
2. It was “hugely sympathetic” to his situation and was sorry that he had been waiting for so long for repairs to be carried out.
3. There was no “delay” in completion of works because there was “no definitive timescale/ schedule of works” for it to follow. It said that a change in contractors had, however, contributed to delays.
4. Works were on schedule and due to be completed at the planned time. It said it would attend on 22 April 2024 to post-inspect works and after this the resident would be able to move back into the property from his temporary accommodation.
5. It could not find evidence that he had been unfairly treated or experienced a service failure and so would not be upholding the complaint.
The resident brought his complaint to us in April 2024. He said that he was not satisfied that the works had been resolved or with the landlord’s handling of his situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told this Service in his referral form that this situation had been ongoing since 2019. However, we have begun our investigation from January 2022. This is because the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires a landlord to consider events 6 months prior to the date that a resident makes their complaint. Whilst this would have scoped our investigation to February 2022, we felt it reasonable to consider slightly further back to January 2022.
The resident has also told this service about the distress that he experienced due to the condition of the temporary accommodation that he and his family were moved into whilst the final period of works took place. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this issue was not raised within his stage 1 or stage 2 complaint. This service therefore cannot consider this issue within this investigation because it has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Handling of the damp in the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates what is known as an ‘implied term’ in tenancy agreements. This means that the landlord must carry out certain repairs. By law, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It must also complete these repairs within a ‘reasonable period of time’. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances and how urgent the repair is.
The landlord’s ‘Repairs Handbook for Tenants’ says that when it receives a report of a repair, the landlord will talk to the resident about the repair and what needs doing to fix it. If the repair falls within the landlord’s responsibility, it will ‘arrange for someone to visit’. The handbook also says that the landlord will tell the resident how quickly the repair will be carried out. It says the landlord will make every effort to complete all appointed repairs within 45 working days after it has been reported.
The ‘Repairs Handbook for Tenants’ says that it has three categories of repairs – emergency, urgent and routine. An emergency repair is one that ‘presents a danger to life or limb’ or ‘a major health and safety risk, or a security risk’. It says it will ‘take action to safeguard people at risk, e.g. children’. The other two categories of repair are not defined.
The Handbook also says that, so that it can complete a repair in one visit, the landlord will do things like use diagnostic tools to correctly identify and record repairs. It says it will also send a technician with the right skills to complete the repair.
A delay in resolving repairs is not always considered a failure, especially if the issue is complicated. However, the landlord should be proactive in its management of the repair and complete the repair as soon as it can. It should keep the resident updated and manage their expectations. It should also complete works to make the property safe in the meantime if there is an immediate health and safety risk to the resident.
As set out in the above section of this report, the landlord was made aware of the leak starting again in January 2022. By the time that the landlord issued its final response on 28 February 2024, over 2 years had passed since the resident first reported this instance of water ingress. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the issue to be resolved. During this 25-month period:
1. There were multiple, unsuccessful visits by its surveyors to attempt to trace and rectify the source of the water ingress.
2. The landlord raised multiple jobs, but the works were not completed in a timely way or were not sufficient to prevent further leaks.
3. There was an unreasonable delay in surveyors proposing the final works to locate and resolve the cause of the water ingress. The landlord’s records are unclear, but it seems that these works were not proposed until 9 May 2023, over 16 months after the leak was initially reported.
4. These works were then not completed until almost a year after on 22 April 2024.
5. There were therefore considerable failings on the part of the landlord in the way that it handled the resident’s reports of damp and water ingress into his property.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings, such as how long it had taken to complete repairs at the property. It appropriately apologised to the resident and offered him £400 in compensation.
When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact that those failures had on the resident. In this case, it is clear that the impact on the resident was considerable. This is evidenced by:
1. The resident consistently re-reporting the issue to the landlord from 13 January 2022 throughout the entirety of the rest of the year.
2. The resident telling the landlord about the damage to his property because of the water ingress.
3. The resident telling the landlord that his young son could not use his bedroom and therefore having to sleep in the resident’s bed instead. The resident says that this impacted on his son’s sleep.
4. The landlord describing the walls as being “wet to the touch” following it having visited the property on 29 September 2022.
5. The resident telling the landlord in his stage 1 complaint that he felt that it was not taking his reports of damp seriously or taking care with his property when completing works.
6. The resident telling the landlord in his stage 3 complaint that he felt that the repairs had been handled unprofessionally and that the situation was impacting on him and his family.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that, whilst it does not have its own compensation policy, it will consider the Housing Ombudsman Service’s remedies guidance when deciding whether compensation is appropriate. It says that any remedy it offers must reflect the impact that the situation has had on the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and recognised that there had been failings in the way that it had handled the situation. However, it did not offer the resident any compensation or make attempts to make things right for the resident. This was a failing by the landlord as it could have done more to resolve the resident’s complaint at this stage. If appropriate compensation had been offered to the resident at this stage, the resident may not have felt the need to escalate his complaint further. This ultimately led to further delays for the resident. It would have also been confusing and frustrating for the resident because the landlord acknowledged its failings but did nothing to make things right.
Whilst the landlord did offer the resident compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not provide a clear breakdown for the resident as to what the £400 in compensation was for. This would have added to the resident’s confusion and frustration as the landlord did not manage his expectations in relation to the amount of compensation that he would have been entitled to.
In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord told the resident that it would be completing works to resolve the problem with water ingress. The landlord did not do what it said it would do in either of its complaint responses because the works were not ultimately completed until over 14 months after its stage 2 complaint response. This is a failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should make sure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
The landlord did not communicate well with the resident whilst the works were outstanding. Instead, an unreasonable burden was placed on the resident to chase the landlord for updates, to notify it of repeated disrepair. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by not communicating with him. This lack of communication would have been both distressing and frustrating for the resident.
In its stage 3 complaint response, the landlord said that there had not been delays to its completion of works because there was “no definitive timescale/ schedule of works” for it to follow. This is further evidence that the landlord did not properly communicate with the resident about when he could expect the repair to be completed. This statement shows a lack of regard for its duty to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ period of time under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Taking over 2 years to diagnose and resolve the issue of damp in the resident’s property is not reasonable in the circumstances, irrespective of how the landlord chose to categorise the repair. This is therefore a failing by the landlord.
The landlord has since told this service that the final works were completed on 22 April 2024 and that it has not had any more reports of water ingress from the resident after this time. Whilst this shows that the works that it completed were eventually effective, this cannot justify the amount of time that the resident was left without use of his son’s bedroom. This is therefore a failing by the landlord.
Given the extent of the failures and the impact that this had on the resident, we are of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord was not sufficient in the circumstances. This is because £400 is not in line with the amounts set out in our remedies guidance for circumstances where there have been significant failures by the landlord, over a significant period of time, which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
In light of the above failings by the landlord, and the understandable distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in his property. We order the landlord to pay the resident further compensation, the details of which are set out below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will follow through any proposed remedy until completion, and that appropriate remedies can be provided at any stage of the complaints process. It says that its complaint responses will be in “clear, plain language”; provide reasons for its decision and details of remedies to put things right.
The landlord also used language in its complaint responses that the resident found confusing. For example, the landlord uses the phrase “quiet enjoyment” in its stage 1 complaint response. In his stage 2 complaint, the resident expresses that this phrase was distressing for him because he quite rightly explained that he had not been “enjoying” his property. The landlord therefore did not follow its complaints policy in this way because it did not explain its position in clear, plain English. This would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress at the situation.
It is also noted that the landlord completed a stage 3 complaint response in this case. Whilst the new Housing Ombudsman Scheme Code requiring landlords to only have a 2-stage complaints process had not come into force at the time that the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the updated Code was applicable at the time it provided its stage 3 complaint response. We appreciate that this update had only come into force a few weeks before the landlord issued its stage 3 complaint response. However, the landlord should have ultimately referred the resident to the Ombudsman rather than escalating his complaint further. Alternatively, it could have raised a new stage 1 complaint for the resident because of the amount of time that had passed. This would have avoided further delays in the resolution of his complaint.
A finding of service failure has therefore been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its handling of the damp in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect to its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £600 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in its failure in handling damp in his property.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failures in its handling of his associated complaint.

This sum is in addition to the £400 already offered to the resident by the landlord.

The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

It is noted that the landlord does not have a formal compensation policy in place. It is recommended that the landlord develops its own compensation policy to formalise its approach to compensation.