North Tyneside Council (202431237)

, Decision
Case ID	202431237
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	North Tyneside Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident moved into the property with her partner and 2 children in April 2023. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the household which include additional needs for the children.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs.
2. The resident’s request to clear the garden.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to clear the garden.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

The landlord failed to complete numerous repairs in accordance with its policy timescales. While it acknowledged this in its complaint response, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

Handling of the resident’s request to clear the garden

The landlord failed to complete this work in line with policy timescales. It also failed to complete the work having said it would.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord delayed in issuing all its complaint responses and did not use the complaints process effectively to put things right.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to clear the garden. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. 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 paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an order for the landlord to inspect the garden. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the garden. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. It must confirm in writing to the resident and us whether it will clear the rubbish and if so when it will do this by.	No later than 07 January 2026
4	Update order We have made an order in relation to the resident’s ongoing concerns about outstanding work to the lintels. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to confirming its position on whether there will be further works to the lintels. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure this is completed by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 April 2023	The resident reported she was unhappy with the condition of the garden. She said it contained rubbish, which included glass in the soil.
06 June 2023	The resident reported issues with the path and the lintels.
30 August 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord about it’s handling of various issues. She said: At the time of signing her tenancy, she told the landlord that the area at the rear of the garden behind the tress needed clearing. However, it had not done so and as a result she and her family could not use it. She had dug out a lot of the rubbish herself but wanted the landlord to make the area safe which included removing some trees and tree stumps. The path had not been repaired despite it being a trip hazard and being raised at void. Damaged cabling should be assessed and removed if not in use. The leaking pipe above the kitchen should be investigated. The skirting boards in the hallway were in poor condition from where the previous tenant’s dog had fowled along them. The surveyor assessed the chimney stack and mentioned it looked “compromised” on one side. The loft was full of rat faeces and urine smells. She had removed 300 large nails that had been left exposed on the stairs. Her child had injured themselves on them. The repair work to the lintels and brickwork was outstanding. She wanted the landlord to clear the garden rubbish, renew the loft insulation and skirting boards, carry out repairs and instruct a structural engineer to investigate the chimney and lintels. She wanted financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
28 September 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response and apologised for the delay in issuing it. It stated: It removed debris from the garden, and it met the moving in standard when the tenancy commenced. Its contractors had attended several times to clear garden debris. The neighbourhood team was attending that day to “identify further assistance”. It was hoping to find a more permanent solution to the issue. An arborist established that some trees should be felled. These were given low priority, and could take up to one year to complete. Any work would be done between October and March. Once the garden debris was removed it would assess the further work to the trees and stumps. The path repair was agreed on 8 August 2023 and completed on 27 September 2023. The cabling was established to be not in use and removed on 27 September 2023. It carried out two inspections when the property was void and found no leaks. Following a survey on 14 September 2023, it had made an appointment on 29 September 2023 to inspect the issue. Disagreed that the skirting boards were in poor condition as there was no evidence of such damage when the property was empty. It inspected the chimney and arranged for patch point work to be done on 5 October 2023. It would arrange to clean the loft and install new insulation. The nails were not identified by the voids team. It apologised for the injury to her son. The void team requested repairs to lintels in March 2023. It could not complete the work due to scaffolding being in the way and due to “workloads”. Appointments to carry out the repair were scheduled on 21 and 22 September 2023 but the resident refused as she wanted a structural survey first. It would investigate the lintels on 29 September 2023. It apologised for the delays and lack of coordination of works. It would let her know about compensation in due course but offered a £30 decoration voucher for the leaking pipe.
10 October 2023	The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused its failings.
16 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She stated: She questioned who was responsible for the rubbish at the rear of the garden. She remained concerned about the safety of the trees as one had fallen into her neighbour’s garden, and the height of the stumps. The path repair was completed but took 6 months. The gas engineer could not locate the cause of the leak. She felt the landlord had painted over the urine and wanted the skirting boards replaced. The appointment of 5 October 2023 revealed the chimney stack needed extensive repair and she wanted a date for this. She was pleased the loft insulation was replaced but felt the landlord should improve its void inspections. She had spent hours removing 3–4 inch nails. She reiterated she wanted an independent surveyor to inspect the lintels and pointing stating they needed proper repair. She had lost confidence with the landlord, and this is why she refused the appointments of 21 and 22 September 2023. She wanted the landlord to review the compensation offered as she had not been able to safely use the garden.
22 November 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated: The garden was now clear of all rubbish. There had been delays due to storms, but it had felled the remaining trees and ground the stumps on 10 November 2023. All path repairs were completed on 14 November 2023. It agreed to replace the skirting boards. The scaffolding for the chimney was installed on 13 November 2023, and it expected the work to be completed by 30 November 2023. No evidence of rats had been noted at the void inspection. In relation to the nails, it reviewed its working practises to avoid a similar issue from happening. Lintels and pointing were part of a planned programme of works in the area for 2025/26. It did not feel there was a need for an independent survey, but it had attempted to do remedial cosmetic work on 21 September 2023 which the resident declined. Its offer of £200 compensation was still open.
4 December 2023	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3. On 3 January 2024, she explained her reasons for this. She said she wanted the walls replastered by the new skirting as they were yellow and smelt. She would monitor the kitchen leak. She disputed the loft was inspected at void. While she agreed the garden had been cleared, there was a lot of buried rubbish that she wanted the landlord to commit to clearing if she dug it up.
30 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 3 response. It apologised for the delay in considering this as it was missed by its team. It stated: Following substantial removal of garden waste, there was no ongoing agreement to remove debris and that the garden was of a suitable standard now. Lintel and pointing work was part of a scheduled programme of works for 2025/26.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response in relation to the garden. She also felt its handling of the other repairs was not completed in accordance with its policy. She felt the landlord had not been transparent. As it verbally agreed to clear rubbish that she dug up and that now it denied it agreed to do this. She wants more compensation and feels the landlord should improve its practices.

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 handling of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident said several repairs were raised before she moved in. These included the concrete path around the house, the condition of the lintels and the brickwork. The landlord raised all these repairs as ‘priority 5’ with a response time of 45 working days. However, we have found:
1. The path repair was completed on 14 November 2023. It took the landlord approximately 8 months to complete this repair which was not in accordance with its repairs policy. We have seen no evidence that the delays were unavoidable. Furthermore, we also note that the resident incurred time and trouble chasing this repair in June and August 2023.
2. The lintels were inspected on 14 September 2023. The surveyor noted that the recent repair to them were of poor quality. Some of the delays to this work were caused by scaffolding being in the way and by the resident’s refusal to allow remedial works on 21 September 2023. Following a visit by the landlord on 25 October 2023, the landlord found out that pointing work was part of a planned programme for works in 2025/2026. The lintels would be inspected at the survey stages for this work. While this was reasonable given the scale of work involved, the landlord should reasonably have told the resident sooner than November 2023. As it did not, it missed an opportunity to manage her expectations. The landlord raised remedial works for the lintels on in April 2024, this was ongoing throughout the year and remained outstanding as of October 2024. The landlord informed us that the lintel repair work was completed in September 2025 and that at the point of survey, all external lintels had been suitably repaired.
3. The brickwork was also inspected and raised alongside the lintels. The landlord delayed in informing the resident that it would complete these repairs in the planned programme of works in 2025/2026. The records show that the landlord completed some brickwork pointing on 12 March 2024 and it has confirmed to us that the programmed works commenced on or around June 2025 and is now complete.
During her complaint, the resident raised further issues relating to loose cabling, the condition of the loft, nails on the stairs, a leaking pipe, hallway skirting boards and the chimney stack. We have found that the landlord’s response to some of these issues was overall appropriate. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered that:
1. The landlord completed the repair to loose cabling on 27 September 2023, which was in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. In accordance with its policy timescales, the landlord cleaned and replaced the damaged loft insulation on 28 September 2023.
However, we have identified that the landlord did not complete other repairs within its policy timescales. These included:
1. The surveyor inspected the leaking pipe on 14 September 2023 and advised that an engineer would attend. An attendance took place on 3 October 2023, but we have not been provided with any notes from this visit. The resident advised us she was told a plumber should attend. The records are incomplete, so it is not possible to establish what was found and if the landlord responded accordingly which is not appropriate. However, the resident’s communication from 3 January 2024 suggests that the matter was outstanding. We understand from the resident the leak was resolved when her bathroom was replaced.
2. The landlord initially refused to replace skirting boards. However, at stage 2 it agreed to complete this work on or around 18 December 2023. We recognise some of that delay was due to the resident cancelling an earlier appointment, however it took the landlord 3 months to deal with the issue which was outside of its repair policy timescales.
3. The resident raised the issue of the chimney stack prior to the complaint and the landlord attended to inspect it. However, this is not reflected in the repair records, indicating another record keeping failure. In addition, the resident has told us that the stack needed extensive repair which is not reflected in the records. However, following an inspection in September 2023, the landlord erected scaffolding on 13 November 2023 and completed the work on 22 November 2023. While this was departure from the policy timescales, we consider that the actions in completing the repair were overall appropriate.
4. While there was no further work needed in relation to the nails, the landlord appropriately apologised and agreed to review its working practises to avoid similar issues in the future. This showed the resident, it was taking her concerns seriously and wanted to learn from its failings. However, what it did not do was recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident having to do the work herself. As a result, it did not sufficiently put things right.
It is positive in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged overall there had been delays and its handling of issues had not been satisfactory. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings it had identified. However, we do not consider that the offer of £200 was proportionate in the circumstances. Taking into account the number of outstanding repairs, that it was necessary for the resident to chase matters, complete repairs herself and that the evidence does not suggest that all issues are resolved, we consider that further compensation is warranted. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This replaces its original offer.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s request to clear the garden
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s garden is in two parts which are separated by a row of trees. The majority of her concerns about the garden relate to the area behind the trees. She said the area was filled with various rubbish, such as renovation materials, glass bottles, syringes, a mattress and a bed. The landlord’s internal notes indicated the previous tenant had sectioned off this area and turned it into a “dumping ground”. The resident said it was agreed when she signed the tenancy, that the garden needed clearing. The pre-inspection report from 10 February 2023, shows that landlord specified that the garden rubbish needed clearing. This supports what the resident said.
However shortly after she moved in, on 11 April 2023 she reported that she was unhappy with the condition of the garden. The landlord took prompt action, and the following day the clearance contractors attended to start clearing the rubbish. However, they did not complete the work. The landlord appropriately inspected the garden on 30 May 2023 and noted her additional concerns about trees and “exposed” tree stumps. Following this, it raised a job noting the “garden needs extensive clearance”. We also note that previously installed scaffolding was preventing the progress of garden work.
The resident told the landlord the clearance contractor attended in early July 2023 to assess the work but advised her it was 6 weeks behind on work. The contractors completed some of this clearance on 20 July 2023. While there was a delay in arranging this the evidence shows the landlord appropriately chased the clearance contractor. However, there is little evidence to show it updated the resident following this. Our 2019 Spotlight Report on “Complaints about repairs” stressed the importance of landlords retaining oversight of outsourced work. While the landlord could not control contractor delays, the responsibility of completing the work lay with the landlord and not the contractor. It was a failing that it took 3 months to arrange what was a routine task which it had agreed needed to be done at void.
The resident remained unhappy as she felt the work was incomplete. She said the clearance contractor only cleared tree waste but not any of the other rubbish. Following her complaint the landlord arranged another inspection for 14 September 2023. While we have not seen a copy of the report, its surveyor noted the garden still had waste that needed removing. While it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for a further inspection, this and the further inconvenience caused to the resident could reasonably have been avoided.
The landlord, in its stage 1 response did not state what it intended to do about the rubbish. However, internal emails suggest it agreed to clear it the following week, this visit is not reflected in its records. As such we cannot conclude whether it attended or completed any clearance work. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord completed the tree felling and stump removal work on 10 November 2023. This was approximately 6 months from when the resident raised her concerns. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that it would be completed outside of bird nesting season and that some delays were caused by storms. However, it was not reasonable that it did not explain this to the resident much sooner.
The landlord in its stage 2 response, stated that it felt the garden clearance work was complete, it is not clear how it concluded this. However, the resident remained unhappy and wanted assurance that it would remove any rubbish she found in the garden. The landlord attended the property on 2 February 2024. The resident stated at this meeting the landlord agreed it would clear any rubbish she was able to dig out during the summer. The landlord has said that no such agreement was made. Given the lack of evidence, we cannot reconcile the difference here. However, given the resident had been clear and consistent with her request that she wished for the rubbish to be removed a response from the landlord should reasonably have been provided in writing. Given the circumstances and that it had been a longstanding issue, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider removing the rubbish as a goodwill gesture. That it did not was a missed opportunity to try to put things right.
It is noted that the resident had been consistent in her reporting that the situation with the rubbish was impacting their use of the garden. With this is mind we will order the landlord to pay £250 compensation to recognise the distress and convenience caused to the household. We have also made a works order for it to assess the remaining rubbish.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out best practice for how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant version of the Code at the time of the stage 1 and 2 responses was the April 2022 edition. At the time of the stage 3 response, it was the April 2024 edition. While a 3 stage process is not compliant with the current Code, the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to ensure that its complaints process has 2 stages only.
The landlord failed to comply with the Code by:
1. Not acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days.
2. Taking 21 working days to issue its stage 1 response, instead of 10 working days.
3. Taking 27 working days to issue its stage 2 response, instead of 20 working days.
4. Not evidencing that it requested extensions to provide its responses.
5. Not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 3 as she requested on 4 December 2023. This resulted in a 9 month delay in dealing with the matter, during which time the resident was waiting for an outcome for her garden.
While the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, it did not appropriately put things right. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays.

Learning

It is positive that the landlord is reviewing its practises in relation to void inspections.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There are some gaps in the landlord’s records. This indicates issues with the way it is recording events in its system. It is vital landlord’s keep an accurate audit trial of repairs as failing to do can negatively impact its handling of them.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communications could have been better. Where repairs raised are part of a scheduled programme or cannot be completed within policy timescales, this should be communicated as soon as possible.