South Tyneside Council (202539878)

Decision
Case ID	202539878
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	South Tyneside Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	12 June 2026

Background

1. The resident told the landlord she wanted to move to a larger property more suited to her family’s needs. She also reported damp and mould throughout her home. She was concerned about the impact of this on her family’s health. The resident lives with her children, including a baby. She told the landlord her older child was undergoing assessments for additional needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Rehousing application.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application

4. We only have the power to investigate councils where they are acting as landlords under a social housing tenancy or a long-lease. The council’s decision regarding rehousing and banding relate to its exercise of statutory powers under the Housing Act 1996 and not as a social landlord. Therefore, we cannot investigate this.

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

5. The landlord did not consider whether the mould was a significant or emergency hazard when it was made aware of the issue. It was not proactive in requesting evidence to assess this. A damp and mould treatment and an inspection of the living room remained outstanding when it provided its final response. This resulted in the resident experiencing a period of distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not acknowledge any failures in its final response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 response. The landlord did not acknowledge this and therefore made no attempt to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.

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 10 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £675 made up as follows: £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s 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.	No later than 10 July 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. 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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the property for damp and mould. The survey report must set out: whether there is an emergency or significant hazard under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the mould whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the damp and mould (if the landlord is responsible). the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date or within the timescales set out in Awaab’s Law if there is a prescribed hazard.	No later than 10 July 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any further vulnerabilities in her household. It should then record these on its systems.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 December 2025	The resident raised a complaint about the delays and lack of updates regarding her rehousing application.
9 December 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had referred the resident’s case to its healthy homes team to inspect and address damp and mould following receipt of a health visitor’s letter. It also said the resident could provide photographs of the issue. It said the evidence provided did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding referral. It said it acknowledged her complaint on 5 December 2025. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it said it followed its procedures.
10 December 2025	The resident said the same person who refused her health assessments carried out the stage 1 investigation, so it was not independent. She asked for the stage 2 investigation to be carried out by someone impartial. She said the landlord wrongly dismissed safeguarding concerns despite a detailed letter from her health visitor and evidence of damp, mould and hazardous conditions. She also said the landlord only made the healthy homes referral after contact from her health visitor.
11 December 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
23 January 2026	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it had investigated the complaint in line with its complaint procedure and met the required timescales. It said the damp and mould inspection on 16 December 2025 identified condensation issues leading to damp and mould. It said it assessed this as low risk and would arrange works to rectify the issues, including anti mould treatments. It also said it would arrange a further survey as it could not access part of the living room and would act on any recommendations from this. It reiterated that it had no grounds for a safeguarding referral.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said she reported her whole property had damp and mould multiple times and her health visitor had raised concerns about her baby living in the environment. She felt the landlord had not properly investigated the underlying damp and mould issue. She wanted the landlord to complete any outstanding remedial works and repairs.

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 rehousing application
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

7. The resident’s complaint concerned the priority banding the landlord had given her within its allocations scheme and delays in it responding to her housing application.
8. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because the landlord was considering the resident’s rehousing application. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

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

What we did not investigate

9. The resident said the issues impacted her and her children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this sort of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any issue and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection for the bathroom on 29 October 2025. The target date for completion was 12 November 2025. There is no evidence to confirm when the resident reported this, so we have been unable to assess whether it acted within its policy timescales. However, she cancelled the inspection on 5 November 2025 as she said the landlord had completed all repairs, except the flooring, following a leak and she no longer needed it.
11. The resident’s health visitor wrote to the landlord on 26 November 2025. They said the resident reported damp and black mould in her property following a leak, including black mould in the children’s bedroom. She said the resident’s youngest child was especially vulnerable to respiratory illness due to their age.
12. The landlord was required to determine if the mould was a significant or emergency hazard under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) Regulations 2025 (Awaab’s Law). The landlord’s records show there were historic issues with damp and mould. It was also aware of a leak. The health visitor’s letter was notice of a potential emergency or significant hazard or a material change to condition of the property given it referred to the effects on the household of the mould in the property. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether there was an emergency or significant hazard in the property. This was a failure to fully consider its obligations under Awaab’s Law by triaging and considering if an emergency or ordinary investigation was appropriate.
13. The landlord addressed damp and mould in its stage 1 response. It said the resident could provide photographs of the issues. It could have been more proactive in requesting these to assess if an emergency or standard investigation was required under Awaab’s Law.
14. The landlord’s records from 9 December 2025 show the resident requested an urgent damp and mould inspection. She said the conditions did not result from minor maintenance issues and the environment was distressing her baby and repeatedly waking them. The landlord arranged an inspection for 16 December 2025 the following day. This was a further failure to consider if an emergency inspection was required. This indicates a repeated failure by the landlord to consider the provisions of Awaab’s Law appropriately.
15. The inspection noted heavy condensation on every window in the property and high readings for relative humidity throughout the property. It also noted black spot mould in the bathroom, downstairs toilet, rear passage and rear bedroom and assessed the risk as low. One of the requirements of Awaab’s Law is to create and maintain records. The government’s guidance on Awaab’s Law for social housing providers states:

“It is important that landlords keep accurate and up-to-date information about their residents and their homes, as well as clear records of all engagement, investigations and communications with tenants. This will support both landlords and tenants, and can be made use of generally and throughout the Awaab’s Law process. We recommend that landlords have in place robust knowledge and information management processes and keep a record of actions taken under Awaab’s Law.”

16. Our ability to assess the landlord’s assessment of whether there was an emergency or significant hazard or a material change, has been impacted by the landlord’s failure to triage in line with Awaab’s Law and keep relevant records.
17. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord notified the resident about whether Awaab’s law applied and how it had considered this. Its records suggest it assessed the risk as low, so it followed its repairs policy.
18. It raised jobs to repair any extractor fans and to complete anti mould treatment in the affected rooms within 20 working days. This aligned with its damp and mould policy to complete repairs and remedial actions in accordance with its repairs policy.The landlord’s records show it gave the resident advice on how to heat and ventilate her home. This aligned with its damp and mould policy.
19. On 18 December 2025 the landlord raised an aftercare visit following remedial damp works. It also raised an inspection to assess the resident’s living room walls as it could not access these due to Christmas decorations. This was reasonable, but delayed action.
20. The landlord raised a job to replace the bathroom and kitchen extractor fan on 7 January 2026. It completed this on 15 January 2026. This was within its 20-working day estimated repair time for routine repairs from when it raised the initial repair for these on 16 December 2025. However, it did not complete the anti-mould treatment until 29 January 2026 which was not within this timescale.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that it assessed the risk as low. It did not inspect the resident’s living room until 4 March 2026 during the post works inspection. This delay, from when the inspection was raised on 18 December 2025, was unreasonable. It identified a small area of rising damp on the living room wall but found no mould in the property and recommended work to make good the plaster.
22. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint responses. Therefore, it did not attempt to put matters right in line with our dispute resolution principles. It delayed assessing the damp and mould and completing the mould treatment. It also delayed in inspecting the living room by over 2 months. The resident told the landlord of the concerns she had regarding the impact of the damp and mould on her and her children especially her baby.
23. Our compensation guidance allows for payments where there was a failure which significantly affected the resident. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and make a payment of £650 in line with our finding of maladministration for any distress or inconvenience caused by the failures set out in our assessment. This is to recognise the impact caused by the outstanding damp and mould, as well as the likely worry about the health concerns.
24. The landlord told us it had completed the recommended repairs from its inspection of the living room on 6 March 2026. However, we have not seen evidence of this and its repair records as of April 2026 show this was outstanding. The resident disputes the landlord has completed all repairs and said damp and mould issues persist. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to complete a further inspection.
25. The resident said her personal belongings had been damaged. The resident may wish to pursue an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurance team should she feel the landlord is liable for damage to her belongings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

26. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process that is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in April 2024.
27. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1. However, it provided its stage 1 response within the 5 working days required for acknowledgements. In this response it provided a link to its complaint policy as the resident had questioned its compliance with this. This was reasonable.
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation within the 5 working days required by its complaint policy. However, it took 27 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This did not align with the 20-working day target outlined in its complaint policy. A different person completed the stage 2 investigation in line with its complaint policy.
29. The landlord said it had acknowledged the complaint and escalation within the timescales required by its complaint policy. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in providing the stage 2 response. Our compensation guidance allows for payments where the complaint response was delayed by several days causing a minor delay. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay £25 compensation in line with our finding of service failure.

Learning

30. It was positive that the landlord signposted to the relevant department regarding children’s safeguarding in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. Good record keeping allows landlords to demonstrate that they have acted in line with the law and their policies and procedures. In this case, the landlord’s lack of clear records meant it could have missed an opportunity to apply Awaab’s law.
32. It is also unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident contacted it, reported damp and mould, or when it received the health visitor’s letter. At times this made it difficult for us to assess its actions. The landlord also failed to provide the stage 1 acknowledgment mentioned in its complaint responses.

Communication

33. There is no evidence the landlord provided timely communication to the resident following damp and mould inspections. Our free online learning centre provides bitesize training on the importance of timely communication.