North Tyneside Council (202415425)

Decision
Case ID	202415425
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	North Tyneside Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 November 2025

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident lived in the property from June 2022 to September 2024. She has physical disabilities including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She also has mental health difficulties. The resident’s son (the representative) made the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, in this report both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a rat infestation.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Rat infestation

The landlord did not respond appropriately to potential hazards, taking 2 months to complete investigations recommended by pest control and failing to provide updates to the resident during this period. It also did not adequately consider the resident’s health conditions or assess whether the property was habitable.

Damp and mould

The landlord showed a lack of urgency and did not identify the resident as vulnerable or prioritise her case, even after receiving medical evidence. It was slow to address potential hazards and did not resolve the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe.

Complaint handling

Though the landlord’s complaint responses were timely, it did not complete a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint, and its responses were insufficient given the nature of the resident’s concerns and the severity of the situation.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 22 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,500 made up as follows: £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of a rat infestation. £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 22 December 2025
3	Case review order The landlord must conduct a review of its handling of this case to identify learning and improve its future service delivery. A written report detailing the outcome of the review must be produced by the due date. The report must set out: What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently to avoid the same happening again. Any staff training needs and/or procedural changes required to ensure vulnerable residents are identified and responded to appropriately.	No later than 19 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 September 2022	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had stage 3 COPD and believed the property was unfit for habitation due to a strong smell of rat urine. She requested to cancel the tenancy agreement and asked the landlord to allow her to bid on alternative properties.
3 October 2022	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the resident had not given it access on several occasions, preventing completion of a follow-on visit, and access was still required. The landlord further advised that if the resident wished to return the property keys, she would need to submit a new housing application.
16 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the smell was ongoing and there was also black mould in the property. She advised this was making her seriously unwell and had resulted in hospitalisation. The resident said that she could no longer live in the property and asked to be moved.
6 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed that follow-on repairs had been scheduled, but advised a surveyor had determined a temporary move was not necessary for the works to be completed.
14 June 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 3. She said the property still had a rat infestation, damp and mould, and an unpleasant smell. She explained that these living conditions had caused a serious deterioration in her health.
16 July 2024	The landlord issued its final response. It said that the investigations at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process were carried out appropriately. It advised the complaint would not be considered at stage 3. The landlord provided dates for outstanding repairs and explained that further testing of the drains was scheduled by its contractor.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said she felt that its overall handling of her complaint was unacceptable and did not adequately address her concerns, particularly regarding her vulnerabilities.
11 November 2025	During contact with us, the resident advised she had moved out of the property in September 2024. As an outcome, she said she would like the landlord to acknowledge its failures and issue an apology. She also asked us to review how the landlord supports customers with vulnerabilities and to consider awarding compensation for its handling of her reports.

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 a rat infestation
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident asked to be moved permanently and to be given additional priority due to the impact of the rat infestation on her health. The allocation of local authority housing stock in England is governed by Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, which sets out when reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about rehousing applications under Part 6, including issues relating to banding or priority. Any concerns the resident has specifically about her rehousing request are better suited to the LGSCO. Therefore, this part of the resident’s complaint is outside the scope of our investigation.
The resident has raised concerns that the landlord was aware of previous pest infestations prior to her moving into the property in June 2022. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. Our investigation did not identify any references to prior pest issues, which limits our ability to assess this aspect of the case. Therefore, our investigation will focus on the events reported by the resident from the time her tenancy started onwards.

What we have investigated

The landlord does not have a specific pest policy. However, its repairs policy states that it will treat rat infestations and carry out any necessary repairs to prevent recurrence. The policy does not set out response times for treatment, but states it has 5 repair priorities with response times ranging from 2 hours to 45 working days. The policy does not specify the criteria used to assign priority levels.
Shortly after moving in, in June 2022, the resident reported a smell affecting her property. The landlord identified the source as the hallway cupboard, noting floorboards heavily stained with rat urine. It raised repairs for the flooring, a deep clean, and further investigations by pest control. Although the landlord could not provide contemporaneous pest control records due to a system change, it supplied a timeline, showing reasonable attempts to arrange a pest control visit that month. Its stage 2 response on 6 December 2023 also stated that a survey was completed in June 2022, which found no evidence of rats entering the property.
On 26 April 2024, the resident reported a rat infestation in the property and provided a video, which appeared to show a rat emerging from a wall cavity. She advised they were running around her home, leaving droppings and urine. She said this was causing her physical health to deteriorate and causing her stress and anxiety. The resident requested temporary accommodation. The landlord appropriately made a pest control referral the same day, but did not respond to this request, which was unreasonable.
On 30 April 2024, pest control attended and confirmed the presence of rats. Repairs were requested for a drain survey and for gaps in the brickwork to be sealed with vents, which was consistent with the approach of the landlord’s repairs policy. Brickwork repairs were completed on 3 May 2024 – 2 working days after the repair was raised. This was significantly ahead of the 45-working–day planned timescale it had been assigned.
The resident contacted the landlord on a further 2 occasions on 7 May and 22 May 2024 reporting rats, indicating the infestation was not under control. Pest control attended 6 times between 8 May and 18 June 2024. On 3 occasions, it chased the landlord for updates on the drain survey and requested it update the resident, but the landlord did not respond. This likely caused the resident some frustration and contributed to her decision to escalate her complaint to stage 3. This also added to her time and effort in trying to resolve the issues.
On 6 June 2024, the resident provided the landlord with a hospital letter which outlined her health difficulties and requested urgent action on addressing the rat infestation due to its impact on her existing chronic respiratory illness. On 17 June 2024, the resident submitted a further letter from her social prescriber which stated the infestation was having a detrimental impact on her health. While we are not medical specialists and cannot determine impact on health, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings in the landlord’s response. These letters should have prompted the landlord to complete a risk assessment and determine whether a temporary move was necessary while investigations continued. However, it apparently did not do this, which was inappropriate given the resident’s circumstances and concerns.
The drain survey was completed on 25 June 2024 – 2 months after pest control first requested it and 37 working days after the repair was raised, exceeding the 30-working–day timescale assigned. This length of time was unreasonable, as pests are potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and should be treated with urgency due to the potential health impact. Instead, investigations were delayed, leaving the resident with an unresolved rat infestation. This contributed to her distress and inconvenience.
The drain survey on 25 June 2024 found no system defects but did identify rat droppings. The contractor recommended smoke testing of the internal stack pipes, which was completed on 16 July 2024, within the 30-working–day timescale assigned. This showed a defect beneath the bathroom floor, creating a potential rat entry point. The contractor advised that remediation would require lifting the floor and installing new pipework. There is no evidence that follow-on works were raised or that the resident was informed of the smoke testing findings, indicating record keeping issues.
The resident requested compensation for her belongings which she said were damaged due to rat urine. In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred her to its liability insurance information and advised that she could pursue a claim if she believed it was liable. This was an appropriate response, as landlords may rely on insurance for such claims and are not obliged to provide compensation for damages outside that process. The landlord has confirmed that the resident did not submit a claim.
The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation, and as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £600 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
After the complaints process ended on 16 July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that she felt it was “downplaying” her complaint. She said that she was still experiencing issues with rats, damp, and mould. The resident advised that following the contractor’s visit that day, it had become clear that rats were entering the property via the sewage system. The landlord apparently did not reply, leaving the resident with unresolved issues.
The landlord said that follow-on works recommended by its contractor were not completed while the resident was in situ, as she had secured alternative accommodation. During contact with us in November 2025, the resident explained she felt she had no choice but to leave the property and had moved out in September 2024.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident asked to be permanently rehoused and to be given additional priority due to the impact of the damp and mould on her health. The explanation provided in paragraph 7 regarding the LGSCO also applies to this point.
The landlord’s condensation, mould and damp (CMD) policy was published in November 2024. This was after the landlord had issued its final response to the resident. However, in its response to our information request, it advised that the content and details of its CMD policy would have been applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint. The policy states it will respond to moisture related issues in a “timely manner”.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported damp and mould affecting her property, which points to a record keeping issue. The landlord completed an inspection on 13 July 2022, which identified black spot mould. A mould wash was completed on the following day (14 July 2022), which would be considered a “timely” response in line with its CMD policy.
On 2 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the mould had returned. She also informed it that she had COPD and could not live in those conditions. The landlord completed an inspection on 24 April 2023, 36 working days later, exceeding the 30-working–day timescale assigned. The inspection identified water staining, resulting in recommendations for follow-on works. The landlord did not raise these works until 25 May 2023, which was 4 weeks after the inspection and 12 weeks after the resident’s initial report. This delay was unreasonable, as damp and mould are potential hazards under the HHSRS and should be treated with urgency due to the associated health risks.
The main follow-on repair to further investigate the water staining was attempted on 13 July 2025 but could not be completed due to the resident’s belongings obstructing access. This work was completed on 11 September 2023, during which the operative requested another inspection after removing skirting boards and plaster, as the wall was found to be very damp. A further inspection was carried out on 12 October 2023, 1 month after it had been requested. The inspection identified black spot mould forming and high humidity levels, resulting in recommendations for further follow-on works. We acknowledge that the landlord was progressing the repairs, but the delays between stages were too long and inconsistent with its CMD policy of acting in a “timely manner”.
The day after the inspection (13 October 2023), the resident requested a temporary move, explaining she felt the property was uninhabitable. She also advised that she had recently had pleurisy, which she believed was caused by her living conditions. The landlord responded the same day, advising that the surveyor who had attended the previous day had confirmed a temporary move was not required. While it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyors, it must be able to demonstrate how it reached its decisions. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or documented the reasoning behind its conclusion that it was safe for the resident to remain in the property. This was inappropriate given the resident’s reported health issues.
On 1 November 2023, the resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord, explaining that the resident’s COPD had worsened and that the mould in the property was likely contributing to her symptoms. At this stage, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review its decision about a temporary move and update the resident. It did not do this, which added to her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord attempted to complete some repairs between 3 November and 30 November 2023, but there were instances of no access and requests to reschedule by the resident. Even allowing for this, the follow-on repair to complete a mould wash and apply warm wall paint, raised after the inspection on 13 October 2023, took an excessive amount of time to complete. The work was completed on 22 February 2024 – 4 months after the inspection and 85 working days after the repair was raised – significantly exceeding the 45–working–day timescale assigned. This delay was unreasonable given the resident’s circumstances.
On 24 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the mould had worsened. The landlord inspected the property 5 working days later, on 1 May 2024. The inspection identified slight black spot mould forming in certain areas and noted that several repairs raised following previous inspections had not yet been completed.
The landlord attempted to carry out follow-on repairs between 20 May and 19 June 2024 but was unable to complete all the works raised, as some were cancelled by the resident. A further inspection was carried out on 2 July 2024, which identified humidity forming in the bathroom. Follow-on works were recommended, including another mould wash, which was completed on 19 July 2024. This was the fifth inspection for damp and mould within 2 years, indicating that the landlord had not achieved a lasting or effective repair during this period. The repeated need for inspections and treatments meant the resident had to accommodate multiple visits, causing inconvenience, disruption, and additional effort to try to resolve the issues.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” We expect landlords to resolve reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time, which the landlord in this case did not. While there were some mitigating factors, the landlord’s actions contributed to the overall delay. Had the landlord followed these recommendations, it might have prevented a service failure.
During the timeline of our investigation, the resident frequently told the landlord about her health conditions and her concerns that the damp and mould were making these worse. These concerns were supported by medical professionals. The explanation provided in paragraph 14 regarding health also applies to this point. The landlord should have acted with greater urgency. It should have identified the resident as vulnerable and prioritised her case on that basis. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The resident advised that her belongings had been damaged by damp and mould (as well as rat urine) and requested compensation. The explanation provided in paragraph 18 regarding insurance also applies to this point of the complaint.
The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation, and as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £800 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its policy stated it would respond to complaints within 15 working days at stages 1 and 2. It said escalation to stage 3 was at the discretion of the senior complaints officer.
The landlord adhered to the timescales set out within its policy during the complaints process. However, there were other failures. The landlord’s responses failed to address the resident’s concerns about the impact of the living conditions on her health, which were central to her complaint. As a result, its responses were not proportionate to the severity of the situation.
The stage 3 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to review both the substantive issue and its complaint handling. However, it failed to conduct a thorough investigation, concluding that the complaint would not be considered at stage 3 as it could not evidence unfair treatment or service failure. Although the complaints policy allowed for discretion at stage 3, these reasons were inconsistent with the evidence. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, failing to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
We consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint, and should reflect and be proportionate to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord should ensure it implements measures to identify vulnerabilities at the earliest opportunity, ensuring that repair prioritisation reflects the individual circumstances of the resident rather than applying standardised timescales. In addition, a clear process for assessing risk linked to vulnerabilities should be established to inform decisions about temporary moves.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was generally satisfactory in relation to the repairs. However, some key pieces of information were provided to us by the resident, rather than the landlord. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents.
Where key decisions are made – such as the decision not to temporarily move a resident – the landlord should ensure it documents the rationale and provides a clear explanation of how the decision was reached.

Communication

There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, particularly regarding the rat infestation, with the resident left to chase and seek answers regarding further investigations recommended. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues, ensuring residents feel informed and supported throughout the process.