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

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202226874)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226874

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

13 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

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her living room.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bed mid terraced house. The resident advises that she has consistently struggled with damp and mould on the gable wall in her living room.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in her living room on 13 March 2022. On 6 June 2022 we can see the landlord inspected the property and raised some works to address it. On 6 September 2022 the resident complained that the landlord had delayed unreasonably in completing these works. On 15 November 2022 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It explained the surveyor it sent to the property on 6 June 2022 had ceased their employment shortly after and failed to raise the works required. It assured the resident that “investigations [were] ongoing” to try and obtain this “scope of works” and that it would schedule them as soon as possible. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £200 in compensation.
  3. The resident was not satisfied with this and escalated her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 3 response on 25 November 2022. It explained that it had referred her concerns about damp and mould in the property to a damp specialist contractor following the most recent visit by a building surveyor. It explained that it would provide a scope of works once the specialist had visited. It apologised again for the delay and offered the resident £400 in compensation.
  4. On 25 November 2022 the landlord visited the property and identified some issues with condensation. It raised works to address these on the same day. On 1 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and explained she did not accept the offer of compensation and asked it to expediate the damp works.
  5. On 6 December 2022 a surveyor visited the property and identified some works to address the damp. There are no relevant repair or correspondence records until 30 May 2023 when the resident made another complaint about delays in addressing the damp. On 27 June 2023 the landlord replied and explained that its surveyor had raised several recommendations for internal and external works to the property to address the damp.
  6. One of these included works to the cavity of the gable wall in her living room. It acknowledged that the resident did not want any internal works completed at her property but encouraged her to get back in touch if she changed her mind. It also offered to attend and complete only the external works. It noted that it would not complete works to the gable wall via the neighbour’s property despite this being the resident’s preference.
  7. The resident replied and explained she wanted the landlord to complete the works on the gable wall via the neighbour’s property. She also did not consider the scope of works proposed were likely to remedy the issue and refused the landlord access to complete any of them. She explained that a previous surveyor had recommended accessing the cavity of the gable wall via the neighbours’ property, and she preferred this option.
  8. On 31 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and outlined a programme of works which it had raised to address the damp. It advised that, if she continued to refuse it access in contra to her occupancy agreement, it may have to take legal action to gain access to the property to complete the works. The resident replied on 6 August 2023 and restated her refusal of the works.
  9. Both parties remained largely at a stalemate over this dispute until 13 May 2024 when the landlord wrote to the resident and offered to reinspect to see which alternative works she might be comfortable with it completing internally. The resident replied on 15 May 2024 that she would not allow access for any further inspections or works because she felt the landlord had already completed enough inspections, and she was concerned of the potential impact of internal works on her poor health. She has advised the Ombudsman that, as of 16 December 2024, her position on this remains the same, and no damp-related works have been completed.
  10. To resolve her complaint, the resident would like the landlord to complete works on the cavity within the gable wall via her neighbour’s property and provide compensation for distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained about how the landlord has handled her reports of damp and mould since 2017. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is typically within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 6 September 2022, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 6 September 2021 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
  2. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from 6 September 2021 up to the landlord’s final response on 25 November 2022. We will also consider events which followed this response insofar as they relate to commitments made as part of the landlord’s formal complaint process.
  3. We can also see the resident made another complaint about continuing delays on 30 May 2023, but the landlord has not provided any formal complaint responses to this. Under paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s process, unless we can see evidence of a complaint handling failure. We can see the landlord responded to this complaint; however, it did not do so via any formal process. Therefore, we consider the landlord had the opportunity to address this via its complaint process but failed to. For this reason, we will exercise our discretion and consider this complaint.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s policy sets out that it will address reports of damp and mould via the following process:
    1. a thorough clean of the surfaces affected will take place within 3 working days of the report, including applying an anti-fungicidal treatment.
    2. an inspection will be arranged to assess the type of damp, potential causes, and any repairs required – if necessary, we will install extractor fans and Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) units to improve airflow and reduce moisture.
    3. a Building Technician will produce a scope of work and arrange any repairs.
    4. if necessary, the landlord will find customers alternative accommodation while it completes necessary repairs.
  2. Its repairs policy states that a level of additional priority may be offered to its more vulnerable customers including those who are over the age of 70.
  3. On 13 March 2022 the resident reported that she had damp in her living room. She supplied a photograph of the party wall which showed it partially covered in black mould. The landlord took no action until 6 June 2022, when a contractor visited the property and raised the following works to address the damp:
    1. Dig a trench next to the brick wall.
    2. Clean wall for adhesive DPM Tanking (DryFix Bitubond) to brickwork.
    3. Install membrane within cavity wall.
    4. Back fill soil and make sure damp proof membrane is 150mm above ground level.
  4. The landlord should have arranged to clean the damp and apply fungicidal treatment by 16 March 2022 as per its policy. Its failure to do so here was a missed opportunity to take steps to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould while it organised the 6 June 2022 inspection. Furthermore, while it did inspect and raise works to address the issue, it did so 3 months after the resident first reported it. We have also seen no indication that it updated the resident at any stage during this period. We consider these omissions likely caused her some distress.
  5. In its later complaint responses the landlord advised the resident that it was struggling with a covid-19 related backlog, and this was to blame for delays. While we accept this may have caused some unavoidable delays, the landlord should have mitigated this by keeping the resident updated about when she could expect progress. We have also seen no indication that the landlord considered expediating the inspection given the resident was over 70 at the time. This was not in keeping with its repairs policy, and we consider was another missed opportunity to properly support the resident.
  6. There are then no further records until 6 September 2022 when the resident complained that the landlord had not taken any action to address the damp. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 November 2022 and explained that it was struggling with covid-19 related backlogs. It explained that the surveyor who attended on 6 June 2022 had ceased their employment and failed to raise the associated “scope of works”. It explained it was investigating to try and “obtain the scope of works”, and that it would schedule these works as soon as it was able to. It apologised for the delays and offered the resident £200 in compensation.
  7. We do not consider this was a reasonable explanation for such a significant period of delay, especially given the landlord also failed to provide any meaningful updates throughout this period. By the time of this response, 5 months had elapsed since the inspection. During this time the resident, an elderly woman, was living in a property with a worsening mould issue. While we accept that the contractor’s termination of their employment might reasonably have caused some delay, the landlord should have acted to organise another inspection the moment it became aware of this. For instance, 1 such opportunity for it do so was when the resident complained in September 2022 that she was still waiting for it to complete the works. We consider this delay was unreasonable and likely caused the resident distress.
  8. The landlord also failed as part of its complaint response to give the resident any meaningful update as to when she could expect it to complete outstanding works or organise another inspection. We consider this ambiguity likely compounded her distress.
  9. We can see the landlord then attended the property on 25 November 2022, identified some issues with condensation, and raised some works to address these. 1 of these works was the installation of an extractor fan. We consider this was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy.
  10. We can also see the landlord provided another complaint response on 25 November 2022 and restated that it would be in touch once it had organised another inspection by a damp specialist. It apologised again and offered her £400 in compensation for the delay. Given the significant period of delay, the landlord should have given the resident some timescales for when she could expect this inspection. We consider this continued ambiguity likely caused her further distress.
  11. On 6 December 2022 a surveyor inspected the property and found that high ground levels to the front left of the property and faulty pointing were likely causing the damp. To address this, it recommended works to reduce the ground levels to 150mm below the existing damp proof course height. It also recommended opening up the cavity of the gable wall to clear out any debris and repairing any pointing.
  12. Following this, there are no relevant records until the resident asked for an update on 8 March 2023. The landlord failed to respond to this, and so the resident made another complaint on 30 May 2023 about the delays. She then sent another email on 26 June 2023 asking for an update and explained that she felt the landlord could complete the necessary works by accessing the neighbour’s property instead of hers. We consider 6 December 2022 to 26 June 2022 was another period of unreasonable delay during which the landlord failed to update the resident and which it has not accounted for. We also consider this likely caused the resident further distress.
  13. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 June 2023 that it had met with its surveyor to discuss the best course of action given the resident’s reluctance to have any works completed internally to the property. This seems to indicate that the landlord had engaged with the resident at some point prior to this to discuss a way forward and that she had refused the works it proposed. However, there is no record of this communication, so we are unable to robustly take a view on the quality of this update or when it took place.
  14. In its 27 June 2023 response the landlord explained it was not feasible to access the cavity of the gable wall by reducing the level of her neighbour’s property. It went onto say that there was no clear evidence this would solve the issue in her property. It also explained the neighbour’s property was privately owned and so it would only seek to complete works by accessing this property if it was impossible to do so via her property, which it was not. We consider this response was reasonable. While the landlord acknowledged the resident had refused any internal works, it recommended that she allow it to complete the following external works:
    1. Remove/repair cable and box, exterior lounge wall corner.
    2. Repoint any bricks to exterior lounge wall corner.
    3. Apply mastic to brick/weatherboard joint / apply mastic to retaining wall joint.
    4. Lift 3 flags to front of lounge, dig channel below damp-proof course up to 300mm deep, lay weed fabric, back fill with 20mm gravel to form trench.
  15. The resident replied on the same day and refused to allow these works. She disagreed that they were likely to resolve the damp and restated that she wanted it to complete works on the gable wall via the neighbour’s property. She also explained that this was recommended by its surveyor in June 2022, and so the landlord should accept this as the best way forward.
  16. While we recognise the resident did not agree with the latest recommendations by the landlord’s surveyor, we do not consider it was reasonable for her to refuse all the works proposed. The landlord accepted that she did not want any internal works completed and tried to work around this by offering to complete the external works only. The landlord acted flexibly here by attempting to work around the resident’s preference. It did not have to do so, given the resident’s tenancy agreement obliges her to allow the landlord reasonable access to the property to complete repairs when the property is at risk of damage.
  17. Furthermore, the landlord’s suggested works on 27 June 2022 correlated meaningfully with the recommendations of the most recent survey of 6 December 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to base its action-plan on the most recent survey. Ultimately, we consider the resident’s actions from 27 June 2023 onwards contributed significantly to ongoing delays in addressing the damp.
  18. For the next several months both parties remained largely at a stalemate over the disagreement on which works should be completed and how. On 27 April 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord and restated that the only reasonable way forward was for it to complete works on the gable wall via the neighbour’s property. She also advised that she could not allow works to be completed from within her property due to her concerns about how this might impact her health. She cited the release of harmful bacteria from within the cavity as an example of such a possible risk.
  19. On 13 May 2024 the landlord replied and acknowledged that the recommendations made by surveyors in June 2022 and December 2022 seemed contradictory. It also acknowledged that the resident had concerns about any internal works due to her health conditions. To progress things, it offered to inspect the property to determine which alternative internal works it could progress which were minimally invasive and assuaged the resident’s health-related concerns. We consider it was considerate and flexible of the landlord to make another attempt to work around the resident’s preferences here.
  20. However, the resident refused to allow any more inspections or works because she felt the landlord had already inspected the property enough times. She restated her position about completing the works via neighbour’s property. We do not consider this was reasonable, and this repeated refusal to allow access has likely contributed significantly to the overall delay in addressing the mould. As of 16 December 2024, the resident remains of the position that the only resolution is for works to be carried out via the neighbour’s property because of her health conditions.
  21. We note that the landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will consider temporarily rehousing residents if necessary when completing repairs to address these issues. We can see the resident advised the landlord in April 2024 that completing internal works would be dangerous for her given her health conditions. However, we cannot see that either party has expanded on these concerns in any great detail. With this in mind, we will order the landlord to engage with the resident about her health conditions and then decide whether it is appropriate to offer her a decant to allow it to complete the internal works.
  22. Ultimately, we consider the landlord has acted appropriately and flexibly from 27 June 2023 onwards to try and progress works to address the damp and mould in the property. However, we consider that, prior to this, the landlord failed to take suitable steps to address the resident’s reports. Therefore, we will order it pays compensation to put this right.
  23. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out how it should calculate redress payments. Therefore, we have used our guidance on compensation to determine this. Our guidance sets out that payments between £100 to £600 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has adversely impacted the resident.
  24. We consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in organising inspections and attempting to complete recommended works from 13 March 2022 to 27 June 2023. We also consider it failed to suitably communicate with her during this period, and that these omissions likely caused the resident some distress. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident £600 to put this right. We consider this figure should be at the top end of our scale due to the length of the delay and the extent of the mould evidenced on the living room wall throughout this period. We note that the landlord has already offered the resident £400 for delays up until 25 November 2022. This order will be inclusive of this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will address complaints immediately wherever possible. However, if this isn’t possible, it will escalate these to “stage 2” and respond within 15 working days. If a resident remains unsatisfied it will then address “stage 2 reviews” within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained about its handling of her reports of damp on 6 September 2022, and the landlord did not offer a stage 2 response until 15 November 2022. This was 34 working days late, and this delay likely caused the resident some frustration while she waited for a response. Therefore, we will make a minor order for compensation to put this right. We have used our own compensation guidance to calculate this at £100. This reflects the relatively minor impact of the delay.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint soon after and the landlord provided a stage 2 review on 25 November 2022 which was within its timescales. She then raised another formal complaint on 30 May 2023. While the landlord responded to this a month later, it did not address it any stage via a formal complaint process.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that expressions of dissatisfaction by residents should be treated as complaints and handled via a 2-stage process. The resident’s email of 30 May 2023 explicitly states it is a formal complaint, and therefore the landlord should have treated it as such. To put this right, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her living room.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £800 broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for its delay in addressing her stage 2 complaint.
    2. £100 for failing to address her 30 May 2023 complaint via its formal process.
    3. £600 for delays in addressing her reports of damp and mould.
  2. This sum is inclusive of the £400 the landlord has already offered the resident.
  3. The landlord is to engage with the resident to understand her health conditions. It is then to make a decision on whether to offer the resident a decant to allow it to complete the outstanding internal works and explain this decision to the resident.
  4. The landlord is to re-offer the resident the works it considers necessary to address the damp and mould.
  5. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.