Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202320582)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320582

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

13 August 2024

(Updated 20 January 2025 following review)


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a kitchen renewal and rewire.
    3. The time taken to repair a front door.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Part of the resident’s complaint refers to her housing application and the allocation and lettings process. Such matters are administered by the landlord as a local authority rather than under its landlord function and therefore fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this element of her complaint, she should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She has lived in the 2 bed multi storey flat since June 2019. The landlord has confirmed the resident has several health conditions.
  2. The resident first reported repairs to the kitchen in March 2022. Although repairs were completed, they did not resolve the problems and a new kitchen was approved in June 2022. The scope of work was later extended to include a full rewire. When damp and mould was reported, an inspection was conducted, and the landlord said it would complete the treatment at the same time as the kitchen replacement. The landlord’s evidence confirmed its attempts at scheduling in the replacement, however it stated this had not been done as the resident wanted a permanent move.
  3. During January 2023 through to May 2023, the resident reported concerns with her front door (a fire door). Again, unsuccessful attempts to repair the door were made. While the landlord was looking for a new contractor, further interim repairs were scheduled for 10 November 2023.
  4. On 5 August 2023, the resident submitted a complaint. It related to the lack of response to a complaint logged in April 2022, the time taken to repair her front door, and the kitchen replacement. The resident told the landlord she wanted to move home due to the impact the property was having on her health.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2023, in which it advised it could not find a complaint from April 2022. It acknowledged the delays in repairs and said it planned to replace the kitchen and treat the mould in one package. It said it was waiting for an update on the front door and would provide further updates. The landlord referred the housing request to the housing management team. It offered £75 for stress and inconvenience and £50 for the time and trouble caused by the delays.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 September 2023. She said she wanted to ‘hold off with the repairs’ as a hotel stay would not be good for her health, and a permanent move would be better – she asked if her son could take over the tenancy of the flat. She asked for more storage in the kitchen and for the repairs to the front door to be completed. She also said she thought the compensation offer was not appropriate.
  7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 27 October 2023. It confirmed the approval of the kitchen replacement and its intention to complete the mould treatment at the same time, but work had not progressed as the resident did not want to move temporarily to allow for the work. The landlord confirmed the work would not usually require the resident to move out, but it would arrange temporary accommodation for a maximum of 2 weeks. It provided advice on completing a housing application but said it could not offer the tenancy to her son as he did not live with her. The landlord advised it was looking for a new contractor to repair the front door, but interim repairs would be completed on 10 November 2023. The compensation offer was increased to £450 for the stress, inconvenience and delays caused.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. In November 2023, the landlord told the resident the work was likely to start in the new year. It was also confirmed that the resident was to make her own arrangements while the work was ongoing as she did not want to move to temporary accommodation. The compensation was increased to £600 as the work was still outstanding. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the kitchen and the landlord confirmed it had made several attempts to appoint the work, but she was not prepared to allow access as she wanted to move. The landlord told the resident to make contact when she was ready for the work to be done.
  2. In contact with this Service in August 2024, the resident said she had been offered a new property and was waiting for the repairs to be completed before she could move. It is not known if the kitchen replacement, rewire, and mould treatment have been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to several health conditions which have been impacted by the outstanding repairs. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she should seek legal advice. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused. 
  2. Both the resident and landlord have provided historical information regarding the repairs connected to this complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme (at the time of the complaint), we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. For clarity, as the resident first complained to the landlord in April 2022, this report will focus on events from November 2021.

Kitchen renewal and rewire

  1. Following several attempts to repair the kitchen in March 2022, the landlord completed an inspection in June 2022 and a replacement was approved – this was a reasonable and appropriate decision as it was not cost effective to continue with the repairs.
  2. An electrical test completed on 1 July 2022 concluded the electrics were unsatisfactory and, while safe, needed work. A partial rewire of the kitchen was initially proposed, however a full rewire was later agreed. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to the full rewire. Although it was not deemed necessary, the resident would have been disturbed in any case, therefore, to prevent further inconvenience in the future, the landlord adapted its initial plans to provide a resolution-focused outcome. 
  3. The resident was told the kitchen contractor would be in contact within 2 to 3 weeks. However, after a month, she had to pursue the landlord as no contact had been received. After a further month, the resident had to contact the landlord again as she had not heard from either it or the contractor and the landlord had to send a further request to the contractor on 16 August 2022. It is expected that a landlord has full access to repair information regardless of whether the work is to be done in-house or contracted out. This is so the landlord has full oversight of the work, can monitor progress made and can provide updates to a resident. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the resident had to invest time and effort into chasing updates from the landlord who in turn had to chase and send further requests to the contractor due to insufficient knowledge.
  4. There is then a gap in communication and evidence between August 2022 and April 2023 regarding the progress with the repairs. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as there is no evidence of the landlord trying to progress the repairs and, in turn, improve the condition of the property which the resident had said was impacting on her health. On 30 April 2023, the landlord confirmed the kitchen and bedroom works were in the process of being appointed but the resident had refused to have the work done and would not move temporarily. By August 2023, the work had not progressed, and the resident submitted a complaint.
  5. The landlord subsequently confirmed its plan to appoint the mould repairs and kitchen replacement for the same time. It asked for the repairs team to contact the resident to discuss when the work could be done and to arrange a possible temporary move. However, there is no evidence of this contact, the discussion that took place or any options discussed. This is a record keeping and communication concern on the part of the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately referred the request for a permanent move to the lettings team.
  6. Within the complaint escalation request, the resident said she wanted to put the repairs on hold as a hotel stay would not be good for her health. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord discussed the resident’s health concerns in any more depth, or that it conducted an assessment to confirm just how the work would impact her. In doing this, the landlord would have shown it was taking her concerns seriously and that it fully understood the impact of the work on her health. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  7. By October 2023, the kitchen replacement and rewire were still outstanding. The landlord’s internal notes stated the resident had advised she did not want the work to be done at that time. Although the landlord said it could try and push the work through sooner, the resident confirmed her wish to ‘hold off.’
  8. On 23 October 2023, the contractor confirmed it had surveyed the kitchen following a request from the landlord to look at the layout. The contractor referred to the landlord the resident’s request to remove a wall to allow more space. While it was later decided this was not a feasible option, the landlord did not provide an explanation to support its decision. This shortcoming is likely to have frustrated the resident as she believed the landlord was putting barriers in her way.
  9. In the final complaint response dated 27 October 2023, the landlord reaffirmed the proposal of completing all the work together. It said the kitchen had not been replaced as the resident did not want a temporary move to allow the work. The landlord explained the work would not usually require a decant, but due to the medical concerns, it was willing to arrange a hotel stay for a maximum of 2 weeks. The Ombudsman finds it appropriate that the landlord offered to arrange a hotel stay while the work was being carried out. It had explained this was not usually needed for such work, but that it had factored in the relevant health concerns and was willing to provide additional support in this instance.
  10. On 29 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had the scope of work for the kitchen, rewire and bedroom repairs. At this point, the resident was to make her own arrangements while the work was ongoing as she did not want to move temporarily. A single point of contact was assigned to help with storage of belongings and although a start date was not provided, the landlord said it was likely to be in the new year. A final offer of £600 compensation was offered to the resident.
  11. Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal and rewire. There was delay from the works approval in June 2022, through to April 2023, with no evidence of communication from the landlord. From April 2023, there was evidence of the landlord attempting to arrange the work on several occasions, but the resident asked for this to be put on hold while a solution to her rehousing was found. There was therefore no fault on the part of the landlord during this period.
  12. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s compensation offer was proportionate to a finding of maladministration where a landlord is responsible for failings that have had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident. It is noted that if it were not for the landlord’s offer of redress for the delays incurred, the finding would have been one of maladministration.

Repair to front door

  1. The evidence provided shows the first repair for the front door was on 4 January 2023 when it was reported that the closer was not working. Although the landlord’s records state the repair was completed the same day, the resident raised it again during a meeting held by the building safety team on 17 May 2023, suggesting the repair was not successful. The landlord sent a joiner who was unable to repair the door due to it being a fire door. Based on the knowledge of the property and the information provided for the repair, the landlord should have known that a specialist operative (or contractor) was needed to complete the repairs. In turn, the resident was inconvenienced by an appointment that did not rectify the problem. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  2. The landlord’s notes show several internal emails were sent regarding the door and its repair throughout June and July 2023, but there is no evidence of any updates to the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable, particularly because this was a fire door and the resident had made her concerns for her safety clear.
  3. In August 2023, 8 months after the first report, the resident told the landlord the door still needed repairing. While the landlord referred to it in the stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2023, it was unable to provide an update. The Ombudsman finds the lack of update and action unreasonable, and it raises concern with the landlord’s safety procedure in relation to fire doors and timescale to complete related repairs.
  4. In October 2023, in its final complaint response, the landlord informed the resident it was looking for a new contractor to complete the work, but in the interim, repairs would be completed on 10 November 2023. This was 11 months after the first report, yet the door was not to receive a permanent fix until a new contractor was found. It is not known if the door was repaired or replaced successfully so the Ombudsman is unable to determine the timescale from reporting to providing a permanent fix.
  5. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the time taken to repair the front door. Despite the building safety team confirming the door in its condition would not prevent smoke entering the flat, there were significant delays in the (temporary) repairs, meaning the landlord failed to meet its repair obligations.
  6. There was a lack of communication with the resident and, considering it was a fire door, a lack of urgency regarding the repairs. The landlord failed to recognise the impact and concern this was having on the resident which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable. Due to the service failures highlighted, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should offer the resident compensation. This is in line with the remedies guidance of this Service and further details can be found in the orders section of this report.

Associated complaint

  1. On 5 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint regarding repairs following a roof leak, the kitchen replacement and front door repairs. She also raised the landlord’s lack of response to the complaint made in April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 August 2023, which was within the relevant policy timescale and confirmed it would respond within 10 working days. There is evidence that the landlord split the complaint into the different service areas and the resident received 2 response letters which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable. One response covering each issue raised should have been provided as taking the decision to split the complaint confused matters further into the process when the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  2. The landlord responded to the complaint about the kitchen, front door, and complaint handling on 13 September 2023 – this was outside of the timescale of 10 working days given to the resident. With no evidence of the complaint being passed to the repair team, there is a concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping, information sharing and the complaint process (namely the timescale to respond). Notably, the response was outside of timescale but there was no evidence of any communication with the resident to explain the delay, and this was not acknowledged within the complaint response.
  3. In response to the complaint made in April 2022, the landlord confirmed it had found contact with the housing team but could not locate a complaint. The resident has provided evidence of the initial complaint made on 29 April 2022 which raises concern in relation to the landlord’s complaint management, record keeping and its failure to recognise a complaint from a resident. The landlord did apologise for not recognising and logging this when it was initially received, but it did not demonstrate how it would take learning from this service failure – the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as it does not support the landlord’s approach to learning which is stipulated in its complaint policy.
  4. The landlord apologised for the delays with the kitchen. Although it confirmed the referral for an inspection, it failed to provide any information or explanation around the delays and lack of communication that followed. The landlord did not use the complaint process to conduct a thorough investigation to identify any service failures, which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable. It provided an update on its plans regarding the kitchen and mould treatment but offered no indication of a timescale for completion. While it signposted the resident appropriately to the lettings team regarding a move, it did not provide her with any update regarding the front door. This was unreasonable due to the length of time the complaint had been active and is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration and request to escalate the complaint.
  5. The escalation was requested on 14 September 2023 and was acknowledged on 19 September 2023. The landlord sent an update letter to the resident on 17 October 2023 explaining that a full review of the complaint was expected to be provided on 30 October 2023. The final response was provided on 27 October 2023 which was outside the policy timescale of 20 working days, however the resident was kept updated of the delay. It was reasonable for the landlord to communicate any delays with the resident to prevent her spending time and effort chasing a response.
  6. The landlord took the opportunity to confirm its position regarding the kitchen, door, and mould treatment, again stating the work had not been done as the resident did not want a temporary move. It was appropriate of the landlord to confirm that the nature of work would not usually warrant a temporary move, but due to the resident’s health concerns, it was willing to arrange a hotel stay as a gesture of goodwill.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It failed to comply with its policy timescales at stage 1 of the process and there was a lack of communication with the resident to explain the delay. The landlord split the complaint unnecessarily and this caused confusion for all parties. The landlord did not use the complaint process to identify service failures with the complaint handling and as a result failed to acknowledge these by way of financial redress. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman’s that the landlord should offer compensation to the resident. Further details can be found in the orders section.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application is outside of our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of a kitchen renewal and rewire.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the time taken to repair the front door.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the service failures identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550. This is made up of:
      1. £300 for the delays and inconvenience caused by failings with the repairs to the front door;
      2. £250 for the service failures identified with the complaint handling.
    3. The additional payments should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears that may be owed.
    4. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to show these payments have been made.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £600 as agreed in the letter dated 20 November 2023. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal and rewire is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord should consider developing a suite of performance indicators to focus on the progress, communication, and quality of its contractors. This information could benefit both the landlord and the contractor in monitoring and addressing any areas of concern.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should confirm its intentions against the recommendation made.