Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202201953)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201953

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

21 June 2024

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 reports of:
1. brickwork and roof repairs.
2. electrics tripping intermittently in the kitchen.
3. damp.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since February 2018 and lives in a 3-bedroom mid-terrace property.
On 22 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that there was “dangerous” brickwork on the gable end of the kitchen offshoot. He said it had caused a water ingress affecting the kitchen window. The landlord raised an order to make the brickwork safe and noted in February 2021 that:
1. the parapet wall to the kitchen offshoot needed to be rebuilt.
2. the roof needed to be patched once the parapet wall was rebuilt because there was a small hole near the gutter.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord asked its surveyor to carry out a structural inspection of the property.
On 23 April 2021 the resident reported that the issues with the kitchen offshoot had caused internal and external damage. He told the landlord that the damage was getting worse and said that he was told that the property required a specialist inspection.
A structural engineer inspected the property around October 2021. The landlord’s records noted that the inspection did not find any structural issues.
In November and December 2021 the resident reported that the electrics in his kitchen had tripped and he was unable to use some of his appliances. The landlord’s repair logs noted that it attended and “practically” completed the work on both occasions.
On 23 May 2022 following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord on his behalf. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about:
1. the outstanding repairs to the kitchen and brickwork.
2. the resident’s reports of damp.
On 24 May 2022 the landlord contacted the resident, it noted that the resident reported that the electrics were still “tripping”. It said that the resident was told that the previous damp repairs left a “weak” spot that allowed moisture to penetrate the wall which tripped the electrics.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. the structural engineer report stated that there was no evidence to suggest that there was movement within the property. It would fill in the cracks and carry out repairs to the brickwork, monitor the matter, and make the relevant appointments with the resident.
2. it had spoken to its damp contractor and was working with the electrical team to resolve the outstanding issues with the kitchen electrics.
In September and October 2022 the resident chased the landlord for updates on the repairs to the parapet wall and roof. He told the landlord that there had been issues with the contractors failing to erect the scaffolding first so it could carry out the works.
In October 2022 the resident reported that the electrics had tripped again. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the brickwork repairs in November, and explained that there was damp affecting a wall within the kitchen.
In December 2022 the resident chased the landlord for updates on the outstanding repairs to the roof and brickwork.
In the same month the landlord raised an order to investigate the issues with the kitchen electrics.
On 17 March 2023 we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. We informed the landlord that the resident was concerned that the repairs in relation to his original complaint remained outstanding.
The landlord issued a stage 3 complaint response on 31 March 2023. It said there were “unacceptable delays” since it had inspected the resident’s home and [brickwork] repairs had been agreed. It said that although “most” of the work had been completed, the brickwork repairs were outstanding which were due to be completed by 3 April 2023. It offered the resident £200 compensation for stress, inconvenience and delays caused.
On 14 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that the brickwork and roof repairs remained outstanding and did not take place on 3 April 2023 because there was no scaffolding “again.” He had contacted the landlord many times but the landlord had failed to respond.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord reviewed its response. It said:
1. the brickwork repairs were not completed on 3 April 2023 and on 26 April it had arranged for the remaining work to be carried out with the resident.
2. the roof repairs were completed on 13 May 2023.
3. it carried out an inspection on 16 May and had identified further work, which would be carried out on 24 and 25 May. These works included full electrical checks of the kitchen and an anti-fungal wash of the kitchen wall.
4. it would continue to liaise with the resident while the remaining work was being completed.
5. it had increased its compensation offer to £500 for stress, inconvenience and delays caused.
On 20 June 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. He said that he had not heard from the landlord “for a little while.” He said that although the external work had been completed, the internal work remained outstanding. He confirmed that the landlord carried out a “clean” to the kitchen wall.
In August 2023 the resident reported that there was still a “damp smell” in the kitchen and that the electrics were still tripping.
In October 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection. It confirmed that there was damp present despite completion of the roof works. It requested a damp and mould survey as it said that moisture getting into the walls was the likely cause of the intermittent tripping of the electrics.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records, and our communication with the resident, whether the damp and electrical issues have been resolved.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 3–stage complaints procedure, which comprised of:
1. problem solving at stage 1. It stated that it would try and deal with the complaint informally at this stage by providing information and taking appropriate action to solve the matter.
2. investigating the matter at stage 2.
3. reviewing both the handling and outcome of the complaint at stage 3.
Its damp and mould process stated that, upon receiving a damp and mould report, it would either carry out a desktop assessment or an inspection depending on the level of information it received. It would “immediately” raise a mould wash to be carried out within 3 days of the report.
Its home repairs policy stated that it completed routine repairs within 20 workings days of receipt of the report and completed planned works within 40 working days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of brickwork and roof repairs

When the resident reported that there was “dangerous” brickwork on the kitchen offshoot which caused water ingress in January 2021, the landlord raised an appropriate order to investigate the matter in a timely manner. However, we do not have contemporaneous evidence that the landlord carried out a “make safe” repair as it stated in its complaint response. Therefore, while the repair logs stated that the repair was “practically” completed on 25 January 2021, the outcome of the visit and any potential follow up work is unknown. However, it is noted that the resident has not disputed that some repair was completed and the evidence does not suggest that the water ingress persisted. Nonetheless, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it keeps an accurate audit trail of any actions taken in response to a report of disrepair
In its complaint responses the landlord stated that it had carried out an inspection on 21 February 2021. However, the evidence suggests that it had not carried out an inspection at that time, rather that it had raised an order for the inspection to be carried out. It is therefore unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion when responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s repair logs demonstrated that it carried out an inspection on or around the 25 March 2021 and referred the matter to its surveyor as it had structural concerns about the property around the same time. The evidence therefore suggests that it carried out an inspection approximately 2 months after the resident reported the issue. While the reason for the delay is unknown, that there was one is unreasonable. Around the same time it also identified that the parapet wall to the kitchen offshoot and the roof needed to be repaired. While it is noted that it had referred the matter to its surveyor for a further inspection, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered whether the identified repairs could be carried out while it awaited the surveyor’s inspection. There is no evidence to suggest that it could not. That was a failing. If it had done so, it may have reasonably avoided future delays in carrying out the work.
The resident chased the landlord for an update around 23 April 2021. He told the landlord that the kitchen offshoot issues and the cracks were getting worse in the kitchen and requested for an inspection. The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not respond to him. Given that the resident reported that the “damage to the kitchen was getting worse”, the landlord’s lack of response at this time would have caused him distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, given that the landlord was aware of existing issues affecting that area, the resident’s concerns should reasonably have prompted it to take steps to inspect the property in a timely manner. There is no evidence to suggest that it did. This is a further failing.
We do not have a contemporaneous record of the landlord’s visit in June 2021. However, the evidence available suggests that at this time it referred the matter to a structural engineer to carry out a further inspection of the property. However, the landlord failed to make an appointment with the resident in a timely manner. This meant that the resident had to chase it for the inspection in September 2021, causing him avoidable time and trouble. In its complaint response, the landlord stated its delay in arranging this inspection was because it was experiencing backlogs due to COVID-19. While this may have been the case, there is no evidence to suggest that it effectively monitored the case nor made reasonable steps to progress it. There is also no evidence to suggest that it kept the resident updated about the progress of the case, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that its structural engineer carried out an inspection in October 2021 and determined that there were no structural issues with the property. However, the landlord’s entry about the outcome of the inspection was not until December 2021, with no reference to the date of the inspection or the inspection report. This is approximately 2 months after the date the landlord stated that inspection took place. Our 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’ Spotlight Report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.”
In this case, the December repair log entry also stated that works to repoint the brickwork and cracks were needed. This meant that the if the inspection was carried out in October, the landlord’s delayed entry meant that it failed to take any steps to repair the issues for approximately 2 months.
In addition, the evidence available demonstrates that the landlord did not raise an order to carry out those repairs until April 2022. Approximately 6 months after the structural engineer visit. It is unclear why there was a delay. However, the evidence that is available suggests poor repairs management on behalf of the landlord.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that it took action to ensure the repairs that it identified earlier in the year, such as rebuilding the parapet wall were actioned. This meant it missed an opportunity to progress and complete the relevant works.
In its stage 2 complaint response in May 2022 the landlord explained that it would carry out and monitor the relevant repairs and liaise with the resident, which was appropriate. However, despite this, the landlord failed to carry out the work which meant that the resident had to chase it for updates several times for the remainder of the year. The evidence available suggests that during this time, the landlord missed appointments to repair the parapet and roof and carry out pointing repairs. It also failed to effectively monitor its contractors which meant there were several failed attempts to carry out the work because it had not erected scaffolding. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that in December 2022 only some of the work was completed. This would have exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It is therefore unsurprising that he escalated his complaint in March 2023.
Although the landlord stated in its stage 3 complaint that work would be carried out on the brickwork on 3 April 2023. It failed to do so, which meant that the resident had to chase it again for an update.
The landlord’s home repair policy stated that it would complete routine repairs within 20 working days and planned repairs within 40 working days. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that the repairs to the brick work, including the parapet wall and roof were completed around May 2023. This meant it took the landlord approximately over 2 years to complete the repairs that it identified in February 2021, which is a considerable deviation from its own policy timescales.
Furthermore, it missed several opportunities to take ownership of the repairs over that period, which meant that it failed to monitor and progress the repairs in a timely manner. In addition, the evidence available demonstrates that it failed to keep the resident updated throughout this case. In its stage 3 complaint response the landlord recognised that there were unacceptable delays and offered the resident £500 for distress and inconvenience caused in its reviewed response in May 2023. While the award went some way to put matters right, taking into consideration its cumulative failures and the delays associated with the works, the award is not proportionate. Therefore a further award of compensation has been ordered in recognition of this. A series of orders have also been made to ensure that the landlord improves its record keeping practices and reviews its repairs management processes.
It is noted that in October 2023, the resident chased the landlord to complete repairs to the internal damage. It is unclear whether these repairs were completed. Therefore an order has been made in relation to this matter.
Overall the landlord:
1. Failed to carry out a structural survey and inspection in a timely manner.
2. Missed several opportunities to monitor and progress the case.
3. Failed to keep the resident updated throughout the case.
4. Failed to keep timely records of outcome of its repairs and inspections.
Therefore we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the property’s brickwork and roof repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of kitchen electrics tripping intermittently

In November and December 2021 the resident reported that his electrics had tripped approximately twice. The landlord attended both times. Its logs stated that the repair was “practically” completed. While it is unclear what investigation or repairs were completed, it is noted that the issues with the electrics persisted. A landlord should have adequate systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. In this case the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it had done so. This was a record keeping failure.
The evidence available suggests there was no further action taken by the landlord in the following months. It is noted that there was an absence of reporting from the resident until 24 May 2022 when he advised that the electrics were “still tripping”. As such, the landlord may not have been reasonably aware that the problem was persisting. When the resident contacted the landlord in May 2022, he advised that the previous damp works left a “weak” spot in the kitchen area that allowed moisture to enter the walls and trip the electrics. It therefore appears that the issues the resident was reporting may have been new – or stemmed from the actions taken in November and December 2021 as opposed to the root cause being the same. The uncertainty here has been exacerbated by the landlord’s poor record keeping.
In its complaint response, a day later, the landlord told the resident that it had spoken to its damp contractor and it was working with its electrician to resolve the matter. The outcome of its discussion with its damp contractor is unknown. The evidence available does not demonstrate that the landlord took any steps to investigate the matter further as it said it would at this time. That is a failing.
It was not until September 2022; approximately 5 months later, that it took some steps to investigate the issue when it carried out an electric inspection. There is no evidence to suggest that the delay was unavoidable. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. In addition, the landlord missed an opportunity to inspect the area to investigate whether moisture was indeed the cause of the trips.
The resident reported that the electrics had tripped again around 10 October 2022. There is evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out some electrical work around this time. Given the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is not possible to ascertain what this entailed. However, it is noted that in December 2022 the landlord raised an order to investigate electrical wiring again – suggesting that there was a still an issue. The evidence suggests that no further action was taken by the landlord at this time.
In March 2023 we told the landlord that the resident wished to escalate his complaint as the repairs he reported in his original complaint remained outstanding. However, it did not take any action on the matter until 2 months later, in May 2023, when it raised another electrical check. Again, the evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable and it is unclear why the landlord did not take steps to expedite the matter given how long it had been outstanding by this time.
The resident had intermittently reported that his electrics had tripped over several months and the landlord had already carried out an electrical inspection. As such, it would have been reasonable for it to have reviewed its position on the matter and investigated alternative causes for the trips. As it did not, it missed another opportunity to resolve the matter at this time. This meant that the resident continued to experience issues with the electrics over the following months causing him further distress and inconvenience.
In October 2023, the landlord carried out a further inspection and noted that moisture entering the wall was the likely cause of the tripped electrics and requested a damp survey. This potential cause was suggested by the resident over a year earlier, which the landlord failed to investigate at that time. That it took approximately a year for the landlord to order a damp survey to try to identify the cause of the trips is concerning and is indicative of poor repair handling.
It is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord has resolved this matter, therefore an order has been made in relation to this.
Overall, the landlord missed several opportunities throughout the case to investigate and identify the cause of the electrical trips as it said it would in its stage 2 complaint. The landlord’s poor record keeping has prevented this Service from establishing whether or not the issues were the same, related or unconnected. However, it is clear that it took the landlord approximately 17 months to take meaningful action to try and identify the cause. Subsequently, this caused the resident, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience. Therefore we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported kitchen electrics repairs.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reported damp

It is unclear when the resident first reported issues with damp. Nonetheless we told the landlord on 23 May 2022 that the resident was concerned that it had not responded to his reports. He also told the landlord around the same time that there was a “weak” spot in the previous damp works that allowed moisture to penetrate the wall. In its complaint response the landlord said that it had spoken to its damp contractor. However, its response suggests that it was referring to the resident’s electrical issues rather than his report that the previous work may not have been fully completed. In addition, the outcome of its discussion with its damp contractor is unknown as we have not been provided with a copy of the inspection report, or similar. Therefore the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to investigate whether further investigation or work was needed at this time. That is a failing.
While it is unclear, the evidence available suggests that no further action was taken by the landlord or resident in the following months. The landlord noted that the resident reported that there was damp on the kitchen wall in early November 2022. Despite this, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it took any action to investigate the matter at that time. Our 2021 Damp and Mould Spotlight Report (the spotlight report) stated that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Furthermore, the landlord’s damp and mould process states that upon receiving a report of damp, it would carry out a desktop assessment or an inspection. It also states that it would carry out a mould wash within 3 days of receiving such a report. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out either action.
On 17 March 2023 we told the landlord that the resident was concerned that the reported repairs in his stage 1 complaint were outstanding. However, the evidence suggests that it was not until June 2023 that it took steps to carry out an anti-fungal wash. Therefore it missed another opportunity to adhere to its own timescales. In addition, it also failed again to take prompt action as stated in our spotlight report, which meant the resident reported damp went on treated for a further 3 months at this time. While the delay is unclear that there was one is a further failing that caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The spotlight report also stated that when there is a damp and mould problem, effective diagnosis is critical. In this case, there evidence suggests that although the landlord carried out a mould wash, it did so without investigating the root cause of the problem. This meant that the resident continued to experience damp in the following months. This may have been reasonably avoidable if it had carried out a damp inspection at the time the resident had reported his concerns.
It was not until October 2023 that the landlord carried out a meaningful inspection and concluded that moisture was “getting in” the walls and causing “black spots” to appear. It also requested a specialist damp and mould survey. These actions were reasonable and proportionate. However, given that the resident had reported damp approximately over a year prior and had chased it for an update several times during that period, the delay was inappropriate.
The spotlight report further stated that landlords must ensure there is effective internal communication between their teams and departments, and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did so. This meant that it did not take ownership of the matter and missed several opportunities to investigate the cause of the damp over a protracted period of time.
As a result, the resident not only had to live with damp in his kitchen over that period, but he also had to chase the landlord for updates on the matter. All of which caused him time, trouble and distress. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp. An order has therefore been made to ensure that things are put right with the resident. We have also made an order for the landlord to review its handling of this case so that it can identify why the delays had occurred. As part of the review, the landlord should consider whether it is necessary to implement any changes in its processes for damp and mould to ensure that similar errors and delays are not experienced by other residents.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 3–stage complaint process which includes an “informal” stage 1. In our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code 2022) we stated that we did not consider that having a third stage was good practice. It is noted the landlord will be carrying out a self-assessment against the latest version of the Code (Code 2024) which came into force on 1 April 2024, by the end of June 2024, if it has not done so already. Therefore we have not made an order for the landlord to review its complaints policy and ensure that it is Code compliance. However, the landlord is advised to consider its approach and the number of stages within its complaints process when carrying out its self-assessment.
On 23 May 2022 we informed the landlord that the resident had complained that it had not responded to his reports of damp. The landlord contacted the resident a day later and noted that the resident’s concerns about the potential “weak” spot that allow moisture to penetrate the wall. While the landlord referred to its damp contractor in its stage 2 response, as set out above, this appeared to relate to the electrics. Given that the resident had raised such issues as a complaint and the landlord had acknowledged his concerns a day later:, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not address it in its response. As the resident had raised his concerns via this Service, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make contact with the resident and to seek clarification about why he was unhappy. If the landlord had taken such steps, it would have had clarity as to the resident’s concerns and would have stood better chance at resolving his concerns
We informed the landlord that the resident had requested to escalate his complaint in March 2023. We said that the resident had raised concerns that the repairs had not been carried out since he had complained in May 2022. This should reasonably have prompted the landlord to fully review the complaint and the actions it had taken in response. This action would have aligned with its complaints policy, which stated it would review the handling and the outcome of the complaint. There is no evidence that it did so.
Therefore, its complaint response failed to fully review the resident’s initial key issues within his original complaint, such as his reported issues with the electrics and damp. If it had done so, it may have been in a position to put matters right within its March 2023 stage 3 complaint response. As it had not, it failed to address those key issues until approximately 2 months later when it issued its reviewed complaint response.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord failed to engage meaningfully with the resident to resolve his complaint. It also failed to address the resident’s specific concerns within its complaint responses. In addition, its complaint policy at the time of the complaint was not Code compliant and it failed to address the resident’s specific concerns in its complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported brickwork and roof repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported tripped kitchen electrics.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £1,100 compensation, which comprises of:
  1. £300 for time and trouble and distress caused by its poor handling of the resident’s reported brickwork repairs.
  2. £350 for time, trouble and distress caused by its poor handling of the resident’s reported electrical trips.
  3. £350 for time, trouble and distress cause by its poor handling of the resident’s reported damp.
  4. £100 for its inadequate complaint handling.
  5. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its final complaint response, if it has not already done so.
3. contact the resident to ascertain whether there are any outstanding repairs highlighted in this case. If there are, they must be completed within 4 weeks of notification. It should also consider whether any further compensation for the date of this determination to the date of completion of the works is warranted.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
1. staff members are taking ownership of cases and are proactively monitoring and progressing repairs to completion within a timely manner.
2. it has effective contractor management processes in place.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In 2021 and 2023 we published Spotlight reports on damp and mould, we also published our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management in May 2023. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight reports. In accordance with 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we encourage the landlord to use the findings and recommends of our Spotlight reports unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.