Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202222194)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222194

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

30 January 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Roof repairs.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Electrical repairs.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy passed to him by succession in 2018. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house. The resident lives there with his partner and 2 young children.
At the time of complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process. This involved an initial ‘problem solving’ stage, which aimed to resolve the complaint informally. If it could not do this, the complaint was escalated to a stage 2 investigation, followed by a stage 3 review as required.
On 23 May 2022, the resident reported a leak from the roof of the property which was affecting the bathroom and landing. The landlord says it attended on 16 May 2022 and carried out repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2022 and reported that the roof was still leaking. The landlord raised a ‘callback’ for the roof repairs and an inspection of the guttering at the property.
The resident’s partner emailed the landlord on 10 February 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not completed the repairs to the roof. She said that the property was suffering from damp and mould due to this and that they had no lighting in the kitchen or bathroom.
On 21 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that the kitchen light switch was inaccessible due to its location directly next to the fridge. He asked if the landlord could relocate the switch.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 5 May 2023. We asked it to log a complaint and provide a written response to the resident by 16 May 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 May 2023. It said that:
1. The roof repairs were now scheduled for 20 June 2023.
2. It had been trying to contact the resident to arrange to assess the electrics but had been unable to.
3. It also wanted to clarify whether a “wash down” was required for any of the areas affected by damp and mould.
4. If the resident contacted it, it could discuss things further and arrange suitable appointments.
The landlord completed repairs to the roof of the property on 28 November 2023.
On 19 December 2023, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 3 of its process following further contact from the Ombudsman on his behalf.
The landlord provided its stage 3 complaint response on 29 January 2024. It said that:
1. It had now completed all roofing repairs.
2. The resident had not contacted it since its stage 1 response, but it had now arranged a full electrical survey of the property for 30 January 2024.
3. It had arranged an “anti-fungal wash” of mould affected areas of the bathroom and bedroom for 16 February 2024.
4. It had also raised orders to inspect the loft insulation and pointing and to repair loose guttering which may be contributing to the damp and mould.
5. It was offering the resident £100 compensation for the delay in completing the roof repairs and £50 for the delay in its complaint response.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

On 4 November 2024, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had still not resolved the issues with the kitchen and bathroom lights. He said he was also waiting for it to carry out repairs to the canopy above his front door and to renew the ‘splashback’ in the kitchen.
On 17 December 2024, the landlord relocated the kitchen light switch and replaced the lights in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of additional repairs to the canopy above his front door and the kitchen splashback.
These matters did not form part of the resident’s original complaint of 5 May 2023, which is subject to this investigation. In an email to the Ombudsman the resident’s partner said they had raised these matters as part of a further complaint in February 2024. If this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and the resident remains dissatisfied, he is able to refer it to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation.

Roof repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend to leaking roofs within 7 working days. The resident reported a leak from the roof to the landlord on 23 May 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it completed repairs on 16 June 2022 – 17 working days later. The landlord’s repair logs reflect this.
However, the resident’s partner disputes this and says the landlord failed to attend on 16 June 2022, leading to her contacting it to chase this up the following day. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s repair logs list ‘no operative comments’ for the attendance of 16 June 2022. This is not in keeping with the other roofing repairs in the logs, all of which include a summary of findings or works completed. Therefore, on balance the Ombudsman prefers the resident’s partner’s version of events.
On 28 October 2022, the resident reported that the roof was still leaking. The landlord appropriately raised a callback for the roofing repair. It also raised an order to inspect the guttering at the property.
The landlord’s records show that it attended the roofing callback on 9 November 2022. Its notes indicate that it had arranged this appointment with the resident’s partner over the phone. The landlord was unable to gain access to the property and so left a calling card. This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says that “If a customer fails to keep an appointment, they will be informed by a card being left providing instructions as to next steps. If no response is received, the repair may be closed.”
However, the landlord’s repairs policy also says that “Where the repair is of an emergency or health and safety matter, we will continue to attempt to make contact and gain access to complete the repair and or make safe. We will take appropriate steps to gain access if not completing the repair or make safe poses a safety risk to other customers or the property”.
Whilst the roof leak may not have represented an immediate health and safety risk, leaks by their nature cause continuous and worsening damage to the fabric of a building until resolved. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to proactively try and contact the resident and arrange access to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
The landlord did not conduct an inspection of the resident’s guttering until 22 February 2023 – 80 working days after it had raised the works order. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had suspended all guttering repairs to allow it to focus its resources on roofing repairs over that period. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the allocation of its repair resources in this way, there is no evidence that it had communicated this to the resident when raising the inspection, or at any point prior to the stage 2 response, which was not issued until 12 May 2023.
The guttering inspection identified the scope of the required roof repairs. However, the landlord took until 23 March 2023 to raise a works order for these. The landlord then attended on 12 April 2023. It carried out what it described as a ‘temporary repair’ and found that it would need to erect scaffolding to complete the full repair.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it planned to complete the roof repairs on 20 June 2023. It is unclear where it established this date as it does not appear in any of the repair logs provided for this investigation. The landlord did not complete the repairs on this date, which is likely to have further undermined the resident’s confidence in its repairs service.
The repair logs show that the landlord did not raise a works order for the roof repairs until 17 November 2023. It then completed these on 28 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete “major repairs and planned repairs” within 90 working days. It defines these as repairs which “require specialist materials and/or equipment and further time to complete”. Due to requiring scaffolding, the roof repairs can reasonably be considered to fit within this category. From the point of the temporary repair, the landlord took a further 162 working days to complete the required works.
In its stage 3 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in completing the roof repairs. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for this.
The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord carried out initial roof repairs on 16 June 2022, as it claimed. It therefore took 18 months from the resident’s initial report to complete the repairs and stop the leak. The landlord has failed to explain the 7 month delay between carrying out the temporary and final repairs in 2023. It is the Ombudsman’s view that £100 does not represent reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience living with a leaking roof for such a lengthy period would have caused the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Damp and mould

The resident first contacted the Ombudsman about his complaint on 18 December 2022. In this communication he mentioned damp and mould in the bathroom and one of the bedrooms and provided photos. He claimed to have previously reported this to the landlord but that it had failed to respond.
The landlord has not provided any records for this investigation which reflect this. However, the landlord has failed to provide any records of its contact with the resident or his partner, outside of its formal complaint responses. The Ombudsman finds it unlikely the resident would have approached this service about the damp and mould without first raising it with his landlord. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the resident made the landlord aware of the damp and mould in the property by December 2022 at the latest. However, due to the lack of documentary evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding in this regard.
The resident has provided a copy of an email his partner sent to the landlord on 10 February 2023. Within this email she mentioned the damp and mould in the property. The landlord responded the next working day and arranged to carry out an inspection on 15 February 2023.This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says, following a report of damp and mould, “an inspection is arranged to assess the type of damp, potential causes, and any repairs required.”
The landlord’s inspection found damp and mould on the bathroom ceiling, which it attributed to the outstanding roof repairs. It also found some mould in 1 of the bedrooms which it said “appears to be a condensation issue”. It recorded that it had given the resident advice about heating and ventilation to address this. This was in line with its policy commitment to “offer simple advice and guidance on what causes damp and mould and simple steps you can take to stop future issues developing.”
However, the landlord’s repairs policy also says that “A thorough clean of the surfaces affected will take place within 3 working days, including applying an anti-fungicidal treatment.” There is no evidence that the landlord arranged or offered this within that timeframe. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had been trying to contact the resident to see if a mould wash was required. However, the only evidence the landlord has provided of this is an email sent to the resident on the same day as its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will “ensure our customers live in a safe home. Where you are protected from harm or danger”. Yet it failed to take action to address the damp and mould, a hazard under the ‘Housing health and safety rating system’. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould said that “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period.” The landlord’s approach did not reflect this.
As established above, the landlord completed repairs to the roof on 28 November 2023. The bathroom ceiling would have been subject to continuous water ingress, and associated damp and mould up to that point. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to arrange follow on works to make good any damage, and remove any mould, at that time. However, there is no evidence the landlord did this.
It was not until its stage 3 complaint response, over 2 months after it had completed the roof repairs, that the landlord told the resident it had arranged a mould wash for 16 February 2024. It completed this as scheduled.
The landlord also advised that it had raised further works orders to inspect the pointing, guttering and loft insulation of the property, which it believed may be contributing to damp and mould. The landlord said it had identified these as possible factors after speaking with the resident. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when this conversation occurred, and whether the landlord missed opportunities to identify these issues earlier. However, the loft insulation, which it believed may have been damaged by the leak, should reasonably have been assessed as part of the remedial work to the roof, given the duration of the leak.
The landlord said that after it had completed these repairs, if damp and mould persisted it would arrange for “a building technician to attend to carry out further assessments”. This was in keeping with its repairs policy and represented an appropriate next step.
In summary, the landlord reacted promptly to the resident’s partner’s report of damp and mould in February 2023, carried out an inspection and offered advice to reduce condensation. However, the landlord failed to arrange a mould wash within the 3 working days its policy requires. It did not complete this until a year later. The landlord has not provided evidence that it considered remedial works to the resident’s bathroom (which it knew was affected by damp and mould) or loft insulation following repair of the roof leak. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Electrical repairs

In his communication with the Ombudsman on 18 December 2022, the resident also stated that he had “no lighting in the bathroom”. As with the damp and mould, it is reasonable to believe he would have previously reported this to the landlord. However, the lack of documentary evidence of this means the Ombudsman cannot be certain this was the case.
The first evidence provided for this investigation of the lighting being raised was in the resident’s partners email of 10 February 2023, when she referred to having “no lights in two rooms”. This appears to be reference to the bathroom and kitchen lights.
During the subsequent damp and mould inspection, on 15 February 2023, the landlord noted that “Bathroom ceiling has water ingress. Which has been running through the spotlights”. It is likely the resident would also have advised that the lights were not working at this time. However, the landlord did not consider any interim measures, such as providing a temporary light source for the bathroom or a full inspection of the lights.
On 21 February 2023, the landlord raised a works order to assess relocating the resident’s kitchen light switch. Internal landlord emails indicate that it had renewed the kitchen in 2022. The layout of the new kitchen meant that the light switch was obstructed by the resident’s fridge and so he could not operate it.
The landlord attended on 3 March 2023. Whilst at the property it also inspected the bathroom lights. It established that these did not have a suitable ‘ingress protection’ (IP) rating for use in a bathroom and needed replacing. The substandard IP rating was likely a contributory factor in the lights failing.
The landlord’s records refer to the lights as a ‘DIY’ install. Indicating that it had not installed them. It is unclear from the information provided for this investigation when, and by who, the lights were installed. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will recharge residents for the cost of repairs where there has been “alterations made to a property without permission or not carried out to a reasonable standard”. However, the landlord did not attempt to enforce this position in this case.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had been trying to contact the resident and arrange an assessment of the electrical works. As with the damp and mould wash, the only it has provided of this is an email dated the same day as its stage 2 response.
After its visit of 3 March 2023, the landlord referred the lighting matters to its electrical supervisor who recommended it complete a full electrical check of the property. The landlord did not raise a works order for the electrical check until 3 July 2023 and there is no evidence that this was ever completed. Nor is there evidence that the landlord took any proactive steps to address the lighting issues prior to the resident escalating the complaint to stage 3.
In its stage 3 response the landlord said it had received no contact from the resident about the electrical repairs since its stage 2 response, but that it had spoken with him and arranged an appointment for 30 January 2024 to carry out an electrical check. There is no evidence with the landlord’s repair logs of it attending on this date.
The next recorded attendance for the electrics is not until 14 June 2024 when it completed an inspection and produced a scope of works. The landlord then took until 17 December 2024 to complete the works. The Ombudsman notes that these were batched within a larger scope of works for the property, which could reasonably be said to constitute major works and need an extended timeframe for completion.
However, the landlord took almost 2 years from the resident’s partner’s first report to complete the repairs. The resident’s family was left without an appropriate light source in the kitchen and bathroom throughout this period. The landlord also failed to complete an electrical check in a timely manner, despite being aware of water ingress in the property which had already affected the bathroom lights and was a potential hazard. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration. The landlord’s decision not to treat the bathroom lights as a rechargeable repair has been considered as a mitigating factor and is reflected in the compensation ordered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of roof repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of electrical repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation composed of:
  1. The £100 offered in its stage 3 complaint response.
  2. A further £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of roof repairs.
  3. A further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould.
  4. A further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of electrical repairs.
2. Apologise to the resident for its maladministration identified by this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should complete a case review of the resident’s complaint. The review should include, but is not limited to, consideration of:
1. The cause of the delays in the landlord completing the roof and electrical repairs.
2. Its communication with the resident about the delays.
3. Action it can take to prevent similar delays occurring in future.
4. Its processes around responding to initial reports of leaks and how it follows up on ‘no access’ attendances.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £50 compensation awarded in its stage 3 complaint response for the delay in responding to his complaint.