Newcastle City Council (202306961)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306961

Newcastle City Council

28 March 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of an incomplete bathroom refurbishment.
2. Repair request for a shower.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1998. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom mid–terrace house. The resident has a hearing impairment and has mobility issues. The resident’s daughter also lives in the property. Her daughter has cerebral palsy and vision impairment.
In November 2022, the landlord carried out a refurbishment of the resident’s bathroom on the basis of an Occupation Therapist’s (OT) recommendation. After completion of the refurbishment works, the resident reported that:
1. The new toilet was leaking.
2. Lighting that the landlord replaced was not suitable.
3. The handrail was not suitable.
4. The shower cord was not replaced.
The landlord said it would follow up with the OT about the outstanding issues and revert back to the resident about the follow-on works.
On 11 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the follow up works since the installation. She reported that:
1. The landlord’s customer relations officer’s manner was unhelpful.
2. The landlord’s repair manager had not left their mobile number.
3. The toilet was still leaking.
4. The base of the toilet was not replaced.
5. The shower was not working for the past 3 months.
6. The shower cord had not been replaced.
7. The handrail was not suitable.
8. The landlord replaced a light fitting but she had not wanted it changed.
9. The shower floor was not safe.
10. Damp appeared during the works but had not been attended to.
On 24 May 2023, the landlord provided its complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. In the complaint investigation, the landlord:
1. Spoke with the customer relations officer who had apologised if their manner came across as unhelpful.
2. Spoke with its repair manager who said they had left their mobile number with the resident.
3. Found that a handover inspection had not taken place, which would have identified the outstanding repair issues for the resident.
As a resolution to the complaint, it apologised and asked the resident to confirm a suitable time for it to assess the outstanding work to her property. The landlord also signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 8 June 2023, the resident responded to the landlord. She disputed that the repair manager left their mobile number with her. She provided the landlord with 3 suitable dates for an inspection in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, the resident chased a response from the landlord.
On 10 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord for an update on the survey to assess the outstanding works.
On 16 October 2023, the landlord apologised that it had overlooked the resident’s emails in June 2023. It asked the repairs team to arrange an inspection of the bathroom.
On 12 January 2024, the landlord carried out a damp survey. It found mild black spot mould. It noted a leak from the bottom of the toilet cistern. It recommended for a plumber to attend and source possible leaks, areas of damp and mould to be treated, and a joiner to replace boxing below the toilet cistern.
On 29 April 2024, the landlord attended the property. It noted that the resident still had issues with dampness in the bathroom, the toilet was leaking into the kitchen ceiling, and the shower was leaking.
When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the landlord was ignoring her household’s disabilities. Her outstanding repair issues were:
1. Unsuitable flooring.
2. Unsuitable lighting.
3. A leak from the toilet cistern.
4. The shower cord should be red.
5. Ongoing damp issues.
6. Leaks from the bathroom into the kitchen.
As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord provided its only complaint response on 23 May 2023. Based on the content of that letter, it has been treated as the final complaint response. This investigation has considered all evidence up until 10 June 2024 when the landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman. This is because during this period, there is evidence that the landlord provided ongoing responses to the repair issues that the resident had complained about.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an incomplete bathroom refurbishment

It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an incomplete bathroom refurbishment. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised that it had not addressed outstanding issues since the refurbishment. As a resolution, it said it would complete an assessment and address the outstanding issues.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
After the resident reported issues with the adaption works, the evidence shows that the works were not completed to the specification that the OT had agreed. In an internal email on 15 November 2022, the OT confirmed that the resident was assured that she could keep the existing light fitting, that the shower cord should be red, and the handrail should be either yellow or blue. The OT assessment carried out prior to the works noted that the resident’s daughter had cerebral palsy and a vision impairment and that her vision can be variable depending on light levels. These specific colours were therefore necessary. However, based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, these adaptations remain outstanding. This was inappropriate and demonstrates that the landlord has failed to consider the OT’s recommendations or the vulnerabilities in the property.
The resident reported to the landlord that the new lighting caused migraines, epilepsy, and vision impairment. Where a landlord has received reports of vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would expect it to consider whether it needs to adjust its service delivery. This may include a further referral to the OT. However, when the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the landlord had ignored the household’s disabilities and failed to consider her health and safety. These issues were raised with the landlord after the adaption works and throughout its complaint process. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to address these issues, nor did it explain why they would not require changing its service delivery.
When the resident raised a complaint, she noted she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. The landlord’s records note that the resident is “profoundly deaf.” On 8 June 2023, the resident asked for the landlord to confirm by text when it would attend to survey the property. She chased a response on 22 June 2023; however, the landlord did not reply until the resident emailed again on 10 October 2023. This was a delay of 4 months. The landlord failed to demonstrate consideration for the resident’s communication needs or otherwise provide a position on reasonable adjustments. This caused frustration and considerable distress to the resident whose preferred method of communication was in writing because of her disability.
The resident complained that its customer relations officer’s manner was unhelpful. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s staff’s behaviour, instead, we would assess if the landlord appropriately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. The evidence indicates that the landlord discussed the complaint with the individual staff member and issued an apology in its complaint response. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
When the Ombudsman requested evidence, the landlord’s repairs team said that after the complaint, it had surveyed the bathroom as requested but it could not confirm when it attended. There was no evidence of the outcome of the survey and no evidence that the landlord completed follow on works which it was responsible for. The resident has also reported to the Ombudsman that this work has not yet been completed. Based on this evidence, the landlord has not addressed any of the outstanding repair issues 20 months after the refurbishment work. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In summary, this investigation has identified significant communication failures, especially considering the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. These failings contributed to the delay in responding to the substantive issue but also caused significant frustration and distress to the resident who felt ignored by the landlord’s failure to respond to her initial request, and subsequently its delay in responding to her for 4 months after its complaint response. The landlord’s failures to address the resident’s reports of outstanding works caused significant distress, inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an incomplete bathroom refurbishment. This is because it failed to follow up and address outstanding repairs, which included adaption needs to assist the household with their disabilities. In fact, the resident reported that the light fitting that the landlord replaced exacerbated the household vulnerabilities by causing migraines, epilepsy, and vision impairment. However, the landlord failed to follow up and rectify the lighting.
The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation of £1,500, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. This is broken down as £1,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience over a period of 20 months, and £500 for the time and trouble caused to the resident chasing updates and further works. When assessing appropriate compensation, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlords communication failings, and the considerable delay in addressing the follow-on works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair request for a shower

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the structure and installations for the supply of heating and water. Once on notice, it is required to carry out the repairs within a reasonable period of time.
Personal hygiene is a potential health hazard to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Health effects include stress and depression resulting from poor maintenance, particularly where the occupant has little control over the situation. A preventative measure includes ensuring there are sufficient numbers of properly connected/fitted baths/showers for (potential) occupants. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property when potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s repairs policy includes expected completion timescales for different types of repairs. It states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 4 hours. Urgent repairs should be completed within 1, 3, or 7 working days depending on urgency. Routine repairs should be completed within 15 working days and planned maintenance within 40 working days.
On 11 May 2023, the resident reported that her shower had not been working for the past 3 months. It is not evident from the repair records whether the shower was completely unusable or whether it still had some functionality. However, given that there was only 1 shower in the property and considering the household vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would expect this repair request to be treated as urgent. Additionally, the landlord should have considered interim wash facilities if it was completely unusable. However, after the initial repair request, there was no response, and the resident had to chase an update on the repair by email 3 times. The repair records show that a job was not raised until 16 October 2023. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that a contractor completed the repair.
Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord only raised the repair 5 months after the resident reported the issue. The landlord’s records are not clear when it completed the repair. This was inappropriate because it did not comply with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy and was not a reasonable timeframe for what was potentially an urgent issue.
The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair request. This is because it failed to appropriately respond to the repair request within its own repair timeframes, failed to reasonably consider the resident’s circumstances, and failed to appropriately prioritise the urgency of the repair. When it became aware of a potential hazard, it failed to consider its obligations in line with HHSRS guidance. When it identified its delay, it apologised to the resident and raised the repair order. At this point, it should have considered the impact of the repair delay and offered compensation, especially considering the household vulnerabilities; however, it failed to do so.
Based on the damp survey provided to the Ombudsman, the property only has 1 bathroom. As such, the resident lost use of shower facilities which affected her enjoyment of the property, directly attributable to the landlord’s failure for a period of 22 weeks from 11 May 2023, when it should have raised the repair, until 16 October 2023 when it raised the repair order. An order of £750 compensation has been made below. This is broken down as £500 for the distress and inconvenience and £250 to reflect the loss of enjoyment, caused to the resident for this period.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
The landlord’s complaint response letter on 24 May 2023 provided conflicting information on its complaints process. It was not clear that the landlord was providing a stage 1 complaint response with an opportunity for the resident to escalate to stage 2 if she remained unhappy. The letter stated, “this now concludes the formal stage of our internal complaints process.” The next steps section of the letter signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s complaint response should have clearly stated the escalation process. Based on the content of this letter, it was reasonable for the resident to have considered that this was the final response to the complaint. As noted above, the Ombudsman has considered it reasonable to treat this as the final complaint response in this circumstance and investigated the complaint on this basis. Furthermore, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling the substantive issues of the complaint; however, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 or otherwise enquire if this was what she wanted.
In line with the Code, when an answer to a complaint is known, and there are outstanding actions to resolve the complaint, “outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.” After the complaint response, the resident responded to the complaint email and asked for an update on the repair requests 3 times over a considerable period before the landlord took any action. This was a further complaint handling failure.
On 16 October 2023, the landlord’s complaint handler apologised for the delay in responding to her emails from June and raised the repairs works. It recognised that an apology was due and that there were continued failings in dealing with the substantive issue of the complaint. This was another missed opportunity to raise the complaint to stage 2. Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failure to assist the resident with the complaints process was unreasonable and a barrier to complaint escalation.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. Its initial complaint response failed to clearly set out its process for escalation. Its communication with the resident to address outstanding actions to resolve the complaint was poor, and when it identified failings in dealing with the substantive issues to resolve the complaint, it failed to escalate the complaint. An order of £150 compensation has been made to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Record keeping

The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
Good record keeping also helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s identified a number of instances of poor record keeping. In particular:
1. The landlord’s Internal email correspondence on 15 November 2022 demonstrated a breakdown in communication due to poor record keeping and information management. Based on these emails, the OT agreed to a number of adaptations to support the resident’s household needs; however, the repair manager had not been aware of these specifications before the work began.
2. The OT said, “drop-down arm as it’s not been the requisitioned colour contrast, this needs to be yellow or blue I can’t remember what was asked for the time.” This indicates poor record keeping.
3. When requesting evidence from various departments for this investigation, the repairs team reported that it assessed the bathroom as part of the complaint; however, it had no formal record of this attendance.
4. Based on the repair records, the Ombudsman was unable to determine when the landlord completed the shower repair.
The above failings caused unnecessary delays and resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an incomplete bathroom refurbishment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair request for a shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that the CEO for the landlord apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered for the landlord to contact the resident in the first instance to confirm if she has any outstanding repairs. A qualified person should attend the property with a member of its Occupational Therapy Team to identify any further repairs required and set out an action plan with timescales of when the work will be completed. Furthermore, it should set a communication plan with the resident to ensure she is provided with regular updates.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £2,400, compromising:
1. £1,500 for its failings identified in response to reports of an incomplete bathroom refurbishment.
2. £750 for its failings in its response to the resident’s repair request for a shower.
3. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

In May 2023 the Ombudsman published our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. It is recommended for the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.