South Tyneside Council (202313895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313895

South Tyneside Council

28 February 2025 (Updated following review on 30 May 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould affecting the walls, ceilings and floors in her home.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant living in a 1–bedroom ground floor flat during the events in this case. She has asthma and mental health conditions.
The landlord is a local authority which owns the property. Its homes were managed by its management company during the events in this case.
The resident moved into her home in August 2021. Later, she reported damp and mould in her flat, and rotting floorboards in her bathroom. The landlord replaced the level access shower with a bath around October 2022 because the floor beneath it had rotted.
On 9 March 2023, the resident reported rotten floorboards in her kitchen. The landlord raised an order for them to be repaired.
The resident complained about the damp and mould, and rotten floors on 20 April 2023. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It said it had inspected and its contractor would do a survey on 9 June 2023 after which it would arrange repairs.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She later told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the length of time her home had been affected by damp and mould and felt it was not safe. She wanted to move and for the landlord to pay compensation for her inconvenience and damage caused to her belongings.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 14 July 2023 which said:
1. It had made her kitchen floor safe but needed to complete further repairs.
2. It felt her home was safe but she would need to move out temporarily for it to complete the necessary repairs.
3. She had refused a temporary move and it asked her to reconsider her decision.
4. It acknowledged the disrepair was affecting her mental health and would support her in getting a permanent move.
5. It understood she had changed her mind about making an insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
6. It had followed its procedures but not communicated with her as it should have. It offered £80 compensation for this.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because it did not resolve the repairs or her wish to move. She also wanted the landlord to apologise and pay her compensation for the impact on her health and damage to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to a landlord’s attention within a reasonable period. A reasonable period is normally within 12 months of the matter arising.
The resident told us she reported damp and mould, and rotten floorboards from moving into her home in August 2021. However, there is no evidence that she had complained before 20 April 2023. As such, the focus of this investigation is the landlord’s handling of the issues from April 2022 as this is approximately 12 months before she complained.
The resident believes that the landlord’s handling of the repair issues affected her mental health. The Ombudsman is not able to make conclusions about any impact on health conditions. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. The resident may wish to take legal advice or make a personal injury claim against the landlord’s liability insurance if she wishes to claim compensation for damage to her health.

Damp and mould

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairing the walls, ceilings and floors in the resident’s home. The dispute is whether the landlord responded to her reports appropriately and whether it took reasonable steps to do the repairs needed.
The landlord has obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair its homes. It must carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale. What is considered to be a reasonable timescale depends on the type of work needed.
The landlord also has obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks in its homes. Risks from damp and mould, and structural issues fall within the scope of the HHSRS and the landlord is required to avoid or minimise any hazards.
There is no evidence the landlord assessed the risks in the resident’s home at any point. This was a significant failing.
The landlord’s repair policy at the time explained the priority given to different types of repairs and its response timescales. From February 2023, the landlord had a damp, mould and condensation policy which explained its responsibilities and how it would deal with reports it received.
The landlord did not provide us with any information relating to its handling of repairs before 9 March 2023. As such, it has not evidenced that it responded to the resident’s reports appropriately and fulfilled its repairing obligations between April 2022 and 9 March 2023.
When the resident reported rotten floorboards in her kitchen on 9 March 2023, the landlord acted appropriately in raising an order for the repair. The job was initially prioritised as urgent and the resident offered the next available appointment within the 3 working day timescale for such a repair. This was in line with the landlord’s repair policy at the time.
The resident told the landlord she could not be available on the appointed date. Its records show it cancelled the urgent order and raised another order with “routine” priority. This meant the job was due to be done within 20 working days.
Given the urgent nature of the repair, we would have expected the landlord to have wanted to complete it quickly. It could have offered another appointment date even if this was outside the 3 working day timescale for an urgent repair. It was inappropriate that the landlord raised another order which did not reflect the urgency needed.
The resident called the landlord on 27 March 2023 saying her foot had gone through the rotten floor causing her to fall and hurt herself. This was 12 working days after she had reported the repair on 9 March 2023. The incident may have been avoided if the landlord had dealt with the repair differently.
The landlord attended the following day and put a board over the hole in the floor as a temporary repair. This was in line with its repair policy at the time.
It also raised an order for a damp inspection which was done on 14 April 2023. The surveyor’s report said that the kitchen floor could be affected by woodworm or wet rot. The report does not demonstrate that the surveyor inspected damp and mould in any other parts of the resident’s home.
The resident called the landlord later on 14 April 2023 saying the surveyor had not lifted the floorboards. She said she thought there was a problem with the damp proof course and asked for another inspection. The landlord said it would call her with an update within 5 working days but there is no evidence it did so within the timescale given.
On 19 April 2023 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to do a specialist survey. The records are unclear whether this was in response to the surveyor’s visit or the resident’s call later the same day. Nor is it clear from the landlord’s records why it took a further 5 working days to call the resident on 26 April 2023 to tell her it had ordered the specialist survey.
The resident called the landlord on 28 April 2023 saying the contractor could not give an appointment for the survey before June 2023. She felt this was too long to wait. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response to her call and this was a failing.
The landlord called the resident on 17 May 2023 saying its contractor would do the survey on 9 June 2023 but it had asked it to do so sooner. It called her again on 22 May 2023 saying a different contractor would survey on 30 May 2023. This suggests that the landlord had made efforts to expedite the survey although this is not reflected in its records.
The landlord’s records do not show which contractor did the survey or the date it was done. Nor have we seen any contractor reports. As such it is not clear what damp and mould, or floor issues were identified or what work was needed to resolve them.
The resident called on 9 June 2023 saying she was concerned that the contractor had only surveyed her kitchen. It was reasonable that the landlord checked with its contractor and then confirmed to the resident that the contractor had also taken account of the bathroom floor.
During a call about her complaint on 13 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that:
1. Every room in her flat was affected by damp and mould except the living room.
2. It had fitted a bath previously because the floor was rotten under the shower tray. The floor under the bath had not been repaired and there was only plywood covering the hole in the kitchen floor.
3. Its surveyor had told her the property was not safe.
4. Her community psychiatric nurse had written to it supporting a move because the disrepair was affecting her mental health.
The call should have caused the landlord to consider the safety of the resident’s home. It should have assessed the risks and decided if it could do anything to minimise them and it should have expedited the repairs that were needed. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action after the call.
It took the landlord 8 working days until 23 June 2023 to ask the surveyor about the safety of the resident’s home. The surveyor disputed that they had said the resident’s home was not safe but said they would progress the repairs needed. There is no evidence that the repairs were ordered at any point.
The evidence suggests that the landlord concluded it could not do the lasting repairs needed while the resident was living in her flat. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it had first come to this conclusion. The resident told us the surveyor had spoken to her about a temporary move, known as a decant, in April 2023. There is no reference in the landlord’s records of this.
The landlord’s records show that the surveyor made a decant request on 3 July 2023. The resident told us the landlord offered a decant to a 3 bedroom house which she refused because it was too big for her and she understood that she would not be able to decorate, fit carpets or install an internet connection. These issues were important to her because she worked from home and understood she may be living in the decant property for at least 3 months.
The resident told us she had discussed her concerns with the surveyor and asked to be offered a more suitable decant property. There is no reference in the landlord’s records to any discussions. However, internal emails confirm it had offered a property and the resident had decided she “could not face” a temporary move.
Given the landlord’s understanding of her vulnerabilities, we would have expected it to have done more to support the resident with a temporary move. However, it was reasonable that the landlord supported her application for a permanent move from 14 July 2023.
It is concerning that the resident’s understanding of the decant restrictions is not in line with the landlord’s procedure at the time. The procedure said that the landlord may arrange decorating, fit carpets and cover the cost of relocating services such as satellite television.
We have recommended that the landlord investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint further. This is to enable the landlord to assure itself that it gives residents clear and consistent information about decant arrangements.
After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 July 2023, the resident decided to reconsider a decant. The landlord appropriately reopened her decant case but no properties were immediately available. It is not clear from the evidence seen what efforts the landlord made to find a decant property. Its decant procedure at the time said it would consider private sector homes but there is no evidence the landlord did so at any point in this case.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould because:
1. It has not evidenced it responded to reports appropriately and fulfilled its obligations between April 2022 and 9 March 2023.
2. It did not assess the risks at the resident’s home at any point.
3. Apart from putting a board over the hole in the kitchen floor, it did no repairs between 9 March 2023 and 2 October 2023 when the resident moved out.
4. Its damp inspection of 14 April 2023 was inadequate.
5. It did not have sufficient regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities in respect of the urgency of its actions or supporting her with a decant.
6. It did not communicate effectively with the resident.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused to her. She was stressed, had no pride in her home and was worried the disrepair was affecting her health. She felt the landlord did not care about her safety or comfort and dismissed her concerns. It was inconvenient to have to keep reporting the issues and chase the landlord to act.
Through its complaint process, the landlord gave £80 compensation for its communication failings. We do not consider this sufficient redress given the failings we have identified.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £750 in further compensation. We have calculated this as 10% of the weekly rent charge for the 29 weeks the resident’s kitchen was affected by the rotten floor boards and added £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s other failings. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s records show the resident complained about the damp and mould and rotten floorboards during a call on 20 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said it would respond by 5 May 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord has provided its system notes and records which confirm the resident made a call to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 25 May 2023. The landlord issued a copy of its stage 2 complaint acknowledgment letter on 26 May 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023 which was in line with the timescale given in its holding letter. It was also 20 working days after the landlord had logged the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 July 2023 was given within the timescale it gave in its second holding letter. It was also 35 working days after the landlord had acknowledged the escalation.
The landlord sent holding letters at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process to advise the resident her complaint was being extended along with the new target date. Notes from its systems mention the extensions and the reasons why.
The landlord’s stage 1 response suggests the landlord’s investigation was inadequate. For example, it failed to acknowledge that the resident had reported the kitchen floorboards on 9 March 2023. This suggests that the landlord had not investigated that part of the complaint and had not properly considered the history of repairs reported by the resident.
The stage 1 response explained what it had done since the resident’s call of 27 March 2023 and said it had followed its procedures correctly. However, it did not explain why it had decided this. Had the landlord attempted to explain how its actions were in line with its procedures, it may have come to a different conclusion.
During its investigation at stage 2, the landlord spoke with the resident on 13 June 2023. On this occasion, there is an adequate record of the discussion. The record shows that the landlord gained a clear understanding of the matters complained about, the resident’s vulnerabilities and the resolutions she wanted.
One of the resolutions she wanted was for the landlord to compensate her for belongings damaged by the damp and mould. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged to visit her on 4 July 2023 to help her make a claim against its insurance policy.
In an internal email afterwards, the visiting officer said that the resident did not want to make an insurance claim. This was a significant change from her position during the call of 13 June 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed this further with the resident before giving its stage 2 response. Doing so would have ensured the resident had made an informed choice not to claim and understood that the landlord would not give compensation for her damaged belongings through its complaints process.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 July 2023, 3 days after receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response. Part of her referral to us was that the visiting officer had told her she could not claim for her damaged belongings from the landlord’s insurance. She told us it was not “true” that she had decided not to claim. However, there is no evidence the resident had challenged the landlord’s view that she had changed her mind at the time.
We have recommended that the landlord investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint further. This is to enable the landlord to assure itself that it gives residents clear and consistent information about making insurance claims against it.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 July 2023 was inadequate. For example, it did not refer to the specialist survey that had been done by 9 June 2023. Nor did it refer to the quotes it had received from contractors by 27 June 2023. These were significant omissions which meant the landlord missed the opportunity to clarify its understanding of the repairs needed and explain why it was necessary for the resident to move out during the work.
However, it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the disrepair was affecting the resident’s mental health. It was reasonable that it committed to supporting her to move.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Both its responses were late and neither adequately addressed the matters complained about. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right for the resident through its complaint process. It also missed the opportunity to make sure the resident had made an informed choice in deciding not to make an insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It had been inconvenient to communicate with the landlord about the complaint as well as the disrepair. She was frustrated that the complaints process did not resolve the issues she had. She felt the landlord had not investigated her complaint properly and gave inconsistent advice about getting compensation for her damaged belongings.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £300 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies. It appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

Knowledge and information management

In our Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report, published in May 2023, we highlighted how inadequate approaches contributed to the failings we saw in our casework. In this case, there are significant failings in the landlord’s record keeping and it is appropriate for us to assess this separately.
As a member of the Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information to enable us to investigate a complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to provide information relating to its repair handling before 9 March 2023.
The landlord’s records show it did not have appropriate knowledge and information management practices in place during the events in this case. We have noted some examples in our above assessments. Other examples include:
1. Its repair records do not give details of when or why orders were cancelled.
2. It did not update its housing system with details of the repair situation. For example, the resident called for an update on 4 May 2023. The landlord was unable to provide information as there were no notes on its system.
3. It did not make records of all its calls with the resident. For example, its stage 1 complaint response said it had spoken with the resident on 5 May 2023 but there is no reference to the call in its other records.
4. Its stage 1 complaint response said it had repaired the resident’s kitchen floor on 21 April 2023. There is no reference to this repair in its other records.
5. Its stage 2 complaint response said its surveyor had visited the resident on 14 March 2023. There is no reference to the visit in its other records.
6. The stage 2 response said its surveyor had identified issues with the floor joists in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom during a visit on 14 April 2023. The surveyors report of the visit only referred to the kitchen floor.
7. It also said a senior manager had visited on 7 July 2023 but there is no reference to the visit in its other records.
8. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities from at least 13 June 2023 but did not update its tenancy records.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s inadequate record keeping practices undermined its ability to effectively resolve the disrepair and associated complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to send us a plan of how it will improve its approach. It should assess itself against the recommendations we made in our Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould affecting the walls, ceilings and floors in her home.
2. Complaint handling.
3. Knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,050. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
  1. £250 for the 29 weeks the resident’s kitchen was affected by rotten floor boards.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its other failings in handling her reports of damp and mould.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.
3. Update its records for the resident’s current tenancy to reflect the vulnerabilities it is aware of.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us its plan of how it will improve its approach to knowledge and information management. The landlord should consider the failings identified in this report and assess itself against our spotlight report if it has not already done so. Its plan must include the specific actions it will take and timescales for completing them.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Investigate the advice it gave to the resident about decant arrangements. It should seek assurance that it is giving residents clear information that is in line with its decant policy and procedure.
2. Investigate the advice it gave to the resident about making an insurance claim. It should seek assurance that it is giving residents clear and accurate information about making insurance claims.