From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Newcastle City Council (202401861)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401861

Newcastle City Council

1 May 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs in respect to bathroom cladding, a back door, skirting boards, worktops and internal doors.
    2. The resident’s further repairs reports about the roof, water ingress, mould treatment, a kitchen cupboard, cracks, a tree growing from under the property, door issues, window issues, follow-on bathroom works, the porch ceiling, replacement of windows that were not safety glass, fence and gate issues, loft issues, and replacement of a living room radiator.
    3. The resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs.
    4. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable and has mental health issues. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in May 2023.
  2. The resident made a previous stage 1 complaint in October 2023. The landlord later said in a November 2023 stage 1 response that it had raised repairs to reseal bathroom cladding, install a bathroom fan correctly, check bath drainage, replace basin taps, seal holes and cracks by front and back doors, fill skirting holes, seal worktop, treat and paint kitchen mould, and check roof outlets. The landlord said these were arranged for 14 and 29 November 2023 and 18 December 2023.
  3. The landlord completed mould, gutter, bath and taps repairs on 14, 29 and 30 November 2023, but it did not gain access on 18 December 2023 for the bathroom cladding, bathroom fan, doors, worktop and skirting repairs.
  4. The resident complained on 15 January 2024 about the outstanding works for the bathroom cladding, back door, skirting, worktop and internal doors. She said an operative attended on 5 January 2024 to seal the cladding, but indicated she declined this as she believed this was a waste of time as the bath was not flush. She said an operative had attended for the back door but there was still a gap and a draught and heating issue in the hall. She said no one had attended for other issues. She asked to be refunded heating costs caused by the draughty back door or paid compensation for service failures she had experienced.
  5. The landlord re-raised repairs in early February 2024 and it did doors, worktop and skirting repairs on 14 February 2024 and started a full bathroom replacement on 4 March 2024.
  6. The resident raised additional issues around the same time that included roof and gutter issues causing water ingress, damp and mould, cracks, and fence disrepair. Following this, managers from different departments visited on 28 February 2024, roofers inspected on 7 March 2024, and the landlord requested a structural survey. In March 2024, it paid her £150 which is understood to have been for issues she experienced during completion of the bathroom works. It completed some repairs, including for the roof, and experienced access issues for some others. The evidence suggests the resident was reluctant for certain works until the outcome of a structural survey.
  7. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 12 April 2024. She noted that works that included the bathroom, skirting and door locks were completed. However, she complained that works were outstanding for the roof, water ingress, mould treatment, a kitchen cupboard, cracks, a tree growing from under the property, door issues, window issues, follow-on bathroom decoration works, the porch ceiling, replacement of windows that were not safety glass, fence and gate issues, loft issues, and a living room radiator requiring replacement.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 April 2024. It noted that the resident had originally complained about bathroom cladding, back door, skirting boards, worktops, internal doors and compensation, then raised additional issues. It said it had upheld the complaint as there was a failure in service. It noted it had paid £150 in March 2024 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said that it had decided not to offer any further compensation after reviewing the complaint.
  9. On 17 April 2024, a structural contractor visited. They said that none of the cracks the resident raised were structural, but recommended removal of some small saplings growing close to the property. The landlord updated the resident and asked her if it could book works in again, which she agreed, and it is understood that some follow-on roof repairs were done.
  10. The landlord subsequently noted on 21 June 2024 that the resident had cancelled some booked works. It inspected on 2 July 2024 and raised some works on 3 July 2024. It raised works for a doorframe, architrave and plastering repair. It raised works to remove trees from under the property. It raised works to apply insulation to the loft where this was missing.
  11. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 5 July 2024.
    1. It noted the resident had complained about roof works, water ingress, mould treatment, kitchen cupboards, cracks, a tree growing from under the property, door issues, windows, bathroom works, a porch ceiling, a fence and gate, loft issues, and radiators.
    2. It noted it had visited her on 21 May 2024 and she had raised issues with a kitchen fan not working, an outstanding roof repair, a leaking porch roof, blocked porch guttering, issues with a porch door frame and architrave, tree roots under the property, an unlevel living room floor, perished window seals, issues with a front door seal and lock, water ingress above the front door, issues with a bathroom fan, cracks to landing window and ceiling, a stained landing ceiling, a sticking and draughty living room window, cracks to 2 bedroom ceilings, a hole in a bedroom cupboard ceiling, and damp and mould to back of kitchen cupboards.
    3. It noted it had completed works for kitchen and bathroom fans.
    4. It said it had inspected damp and mould on 2 July 2024.
    5. It noted it had erected scaffold and it awaited an update from the contractor for roof, porch roof and gutter repairs.
    6. It said works for the porch door frame and architrave was planned for 6 and 9 August 2024.
    7. It said some saplings growing in 3 locations had not caused any damage and were scheduled to be removed on 9 August 2024.
    8. It noted the resident had said she wanted no further action for the living room floor.
    9. It said operatives were scheduled to attend on 9 August 2024 for the perished window and door seals and issues with door lock, the cracks to landing windows and ceiling, the sticking and draughty living room window and the landing ceiling staining, which it intended to address by adding loft insulation.
    10. It said cracking was not structural but a plasterer was attending on 6 August 2024 for cracks to 2 bedroom ceilings and the hole in a bedroom cupboard ceiling.
    11. It apologised that the resident had needed to complain and said it upheld the complaint.
  12. The landlord records and the resident’s account confirms it attended on 6 and 9 August 2024 for the works it detailed in its stage 2 response.
  13. The landlord later visited in February 2025, after contact from the Ombudsman, to inspect damp and mould in the kitchen. Following this, it identified works to clean mould around a stop cock, check for leaks, lag and box in pipework, and survey for the addition of a fan heater to the kitchen.
  14. The resident raises dissatisfaction with how some repairs were done such as windows, which she says are not flush. She says that some works she was told would be done have not been done. She says she is still waiting for a living room radiator replacement. She says that while an operative attended with insulation, they only mould treated the ceiling and did not fit the insulation. She says no one has come to look at the fence and it was falling apart. She says the landlord told her that it would plaster the porch ceiling but it had not done this. She is unhappy she had to fill lots of holes herself. She also raises concern the living room floor is not level, which she believes is due to plants underneath the property, and raises dissatisfaction that the landlord wanted her to remove her carpet herself.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in respect to bathroom cladding, a back door, skirting boards, worktops and internal doors

  1. The landlord said in a previous November 2023 stage 1 response that it would do various works on 18 December 2023, and the resident then asked for a new stage 1 complaint to be raised in January 2024 as the repairs were outstanding.
  2. It is evident that the landlord tried to meet its commitment to do the repairs on 18 December 2023. Its records show its contractor attended and did not obtain a response when they were at the door or when they attempted to call the resident. The resident’s account then confirms that operatives attended for the bathroom cladding and a draughty back door. While the resident did not feel these visits resolved her issues, this shows the landlord attempted to take reasonably timely action for her reports.
  3. When the resident complained in mid January 2024, the landlord re-raised the doors, skirting and worktop repairs and arranged for an operative to visit and complete works for these on 14 February 2024. It also arranged for her bathroom to be renewed in March 2024. The resident raises dissatisfaction that it took over a year and a half to resolve the bathroom, and that issues with the back door are not fully resolved, but the evidence shows the landlord took reasonably timely action to try to address the issues she raised in the timeframe of her complaint. The resident has the option to make a further report if the back door issue is unresolved, but a recommendation is made about this.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord paid the resident £150 for issues that arose. This is in line with what our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been maladministration, but no permanent impact, and is reasonable for service issues evident. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably in respect to the resident’s reports of these repairs. This does not mean that we think any impact on the resident was “reasonable,” but reflects the landlord reasonably remedied any evident failings.

The resident’s subsequent repairs reports

  1. The resident raised additional issues in her April 2024 complaint escalation in respect to the roof and water ingress, mould treatment, a kitchen cupboard, cracks, a tree growing from under the property, door issues, window issues, follow-on bathroom decoration works, the porch ceiling, replacement of windows that were not safety glass, fence and gate issues, loft issues, and a living room radiator requiring replacement.
  2. The landlord received reports from the resident in late January 2024 about water ingress. It raised a repair to clear blocked gutters after which an operative attended in late February 2024. The outcome from the landlord’s records is not evident, but the resident says the operative told her that limited ingress was coming from the gutters but the soffits were in disrepair. The landlord inspected the gutters and the roof in March 2024 and arranged for a roofer to complete works around April and July 2024.
  3. The resident confirms the landlord did works for the gutters and roof including her porch roof, but says water still pools on the roof and she gets water drips in the bedroom. She also raises concern that a hole was not put in the roof for a downpipe. She says she raised such issues to landlord staff but cannot evidence this as she has deleted emails.
  4. On the evidence, the landlord shows it was responsive to the resident’s reports about the roof and water ingress issues and completed works that were identified following inspections. These seem generally in line with the 15 and 40 working day timeframes for such repairs in its repairs policy. If issues are unresolved she has the option to report these. However, a recommendation is made to the landlord to check works were done in line with what was identified.
  5. The landlord’s actions for the gutters and roof partly related to mould issues, and it also evident that it did mould treatment in April and May 2024. It later said in its stage 2 response that it had inspected for damp and mould on 2 July 2024. The landlord shows it inspected the property and so had appropriate opportunity to take a view about damp and mould issues and raise any relevant works. However, its approach and the outcome to the 2 July 2024 inspection is not clear. While the landlord’s recent February 2025 inspection indicates an isolated problem, we would have liked to see evidence of the landlord’s observations about damp and clear communication to the resident about this.
  6. The resident reported in mid February 2024 that a kitchen cupboard did not have a back. The landlord scheduled an appointment with the resident for late March 2024, and a further appointment for late May 2024, but its operative did not gain access. The current status of this repair is unclear but, on the evidence, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s report and tried to do the repair in a timely manner. If it is unresolved she has the option to report it.
  7. The resident reported cracks from mid January 2024 to multiple areas. She asked the landlord to repair these and was concerned these were structural. It is evident that the landlord did not believe they were structural on inspection of these and believed the resident was responsible for them under the tenancy agreement. The landlord later arranged for a structural contractor to assess them, who confirmed they were not structural, removed trees, and did some filling of cracks and patches around the property. On the evidence, the landlord responded reasonably as it inspected the issue, consulted suitable experts, and exercised discretion to fill holes and cracks which are normally tenant responsibility under the landlord’s repairs policy.
  8. The resident reported that there was cracking all the way around the porch doorframe and architrave from mid February 2024. The landlord inspected this in late February 2024 and agreed to do remedial works, but it is understood it postponed these at the resident’s request until the structural inspection outcome. It sought to progress the repairs in mid April 2024 after the structural inspection found no issues, and completed them in early August 2024. On the evidence, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports and completed the repair in a reasonably timely manner given circumstances.
  9. The resident reported from mid January 2024 that windows were draughty and had issues with handles, after which the landlord’s operative attended in early February 2024 and did some works. The resident said in her mid April 2024 complaint escalation that she was told some further works were needed to reseal and fit trickle vents. The landlord visited in late May 2024 and later said in its July 2024 complaint response that it would do works in early August 2024. The resident confirms an operative resealed the windows and fitted trickle vents but she raised dissatisfaction the windows were not made flush. On the evidence, the landlord initially responded to the resident’s report in line with the 15 working day timeframes for such repairs in its repairs policy, but the reasons for delays doing the further works is not entirely clear, which is not satisfactory.
  10. The resident reported cracking to the bathroom ceiling from mid February 2024, and it is understood the landlord did works during the March 2024 bathroom renewal. The resident then complained in her April 2024 escalation that follow-on works were required to plaster areas such as around extractors. The landlord raised repairs in March and May 2024 for cracks and holes, but when an operative attended in June 2024 it was noted the resident said she did not want the repairs. It subsequently completed the works in early August 2024. The resident confirms works were done but raises dissatisfaction that filler was left everywhere. On the evidence, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports and completed the repair in a reasonably timely manner given circumstances. If the issue is unresolved she has the option to report it.
  11. The resident reported the porch ceiling around early February 2024. In mid February 2024, she noted an operative said it needed plastering, and when managers inspected in late February 2024 they agreed to works to plaster the porch ceiling. The resident then complained in her April 2024 escalation that this was outstanding. The landlord’s July 2024 stage 2 response noted this as a complaint point, but did not include it among works it said it was doing and later completed. The resident says the landlord has never plastered the porch ceiling. The landlord’s approach for this repair is not satisfactory, as it has failed to keep its commitment to the resident without any clear communication or explanation.
  12. The resident reported an unlevel living room floor in late May 2024, which the landlord noted in its July 2024 complaint response she wanted no further action for. It is understood this is because the landlord said it would inspect the floor if she removed her carpet at her cost, which she does not feel she should do. On the evidence, the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. It is not evident there is any significant disrepair to the floor or that the landlord is failing its stated obligations, such as in the repairs policy or the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident raised the issue late in the complaint and the landlord set out its understanding of the outcome to initial discussions. She has the option to re-raise the issue and make a complaint if she remains dissatisfied.
  13. The resident raised concerns in mid February 2024 that windows above doors were dangerous as they are single glazing and not shatter proof glass. The resident then complained in her April 2024 escalation that these needed to be replaced or boarded. It is evident that managers considered the windows in their late February 2024 inspection but did not initially identify them as a required repair.
  14. The landlord’s approach and communication could have been clearer but it is not evident there has been a significant failing for this issue. Its main obligations are to respond appropriately to repairs issues. It is not evident that the resident reported specific repairs for the windows, or that the landlord is obligated to replace the glass, and the Ombudsman does not have the expertise to decide if or when it should. While this is the case, a recommendation is made to the landlord about this issue.
  15. The landlord reported in mid February 2024 that, after previous repairs, panels were coming away from the fence. When managers inspected in late February 2024, they agreed it needed repair, and the landlord told the resident that its contractor which may visit and measure up. The resident then complained in her April 2024 escalation that the fence still needed doing and her gate also no longer shut. After the landlord raised a repair its records indicate some action was taken in May 2024, but this is unclear and the resident says no one has ever come for the fence and it is falling apart. The landlord’s July 2024 stage 2 response noted this as a complaint point, but did not include it among works it said it was doing and later completed. The landlord’s approach for this repair is not satisfactory, as it has failed to address this repair without any clear explanation and it remains outstanding.
  16. The resident raised various issues with the loft in mid February 2024, which managers inspected in late February 2024 and agreed actions for them. The resident then complained in her April 2024 escalation about seeing daylight, deteriorated insulation, noises, and previous tenant belongings. The landlord’s July 2024 stage 2 response noted loft issues as a complaint point and said the early August 2024 works included addition of loft insulation to address staining to a landing ceiling.
  17. The evidence shows that the landlord and its contractor inspected the loft and some issues are understood to have been addressed by the roof and gutter works. However, the landlord’s approach and actions is unclear for the reports about deteriorated insulation and previous tenant belongings. The resident also says that while an operative attended with insulation in August 2024, they did not fit it and only did mould treatment to the landing ceiling. The landlord’s approach for these aspects is not satisfactory, as it has failed to address them without any clear explanation and there seems to be outstanding actions.
  18. The resident raised issues with radiators in late February 2024 and managers inspected and raised a repair to replace thermostatic valves on all the radiators. When an operative completed this in early March 2024, they reported that the living room radiator needed to be renewed. The resident then complained in her April 2024 escalation that the living room radiator had been measured for a new one but she had not been told when it would be installed. The landlord’s July 2024 stage 2 response noted this as a complaint point, but did not include it among works it said it was doing and later completed.
  19. The landlord’s approach for radiator repair is not satisfactory. The resident says the living room radiator has not been replaced, but it is not evident she has been left without a functional radiator. However, the landlord has failed to address this repair without any clear explanation why its contractor recommendation has not been followed.
  20. Overall, the landlord shows it was responsive to many of the resident’s repairs reports and completed many of these in a reasonably timely manner. However, aspects of its handling was not entirely satisfactory. It is not clear what reasons for window repair delays were. It was not clear what the outcome to its July 2024 damp and mould inspection was. It has failed to keep a commitment to plaster the porch ceiling without clear explanation why. It has failed to keep a commitment for an outstanding fence repair, or address a report about a gate repair, without any clear explanation. It has failed to address some loft issues and its operative failed to keep a commitment to add loft insulation. It has failed to address the replacement of a radiator without any clear explanation why a contractor recommendation has not been followed.
  21. It is not evident there have been significant failures by the landlord to meet its obligations or that these issues have resulted in wider and more significant detriment. However, its handling will have caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident and undermined her confidence, which is not appropriate. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s further repairs reports.
  22. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised other issues, such as a letterbox not being replaced and a desire to be provided a paint pack to do repainting. It is not evident these issues were included in her formal complaint, but a recommendation is made about these.

The resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs

  1. The resident has mental health issues, says the issues and landlord’s handling have impacted her mental health, and has expressed concern to the Ombudsman about how the landlord handled her vulnerabilities and support needs.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has significant dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling and her experiences have been very distressing for her. The Ombudsman notes, however, that we cannot make a definitive decision about liability for the impact on mental health, and have to consider if the landlord acted reasonably based on the evidence we have seen.
  3. The landlord shows it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and sought to consider these. It appointed single points of contact who she was in regular contact with. It internally flagged that the case had sensitivities. It checked if appointments suited her. It sought to discuss her needs with appropriate staff, such as not attending unannounced. The resident has raised concerns about 5 males visiting on one occasion which we understand was distressing for her. It is evident the landlord sought to have consideration for how situations affected her, and sought to visit in line with her preferences.
  4. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord reasonably sought to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and provide proportionate support, given its role and obligations.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained in mid January 2024, after which the landlord provided its stage 1 response in mid April 2024. The resident escalated the complaint around the same time, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response in early July 2024. The responses were both delayed by over 2 months, which is not in line with the landlord’s policy to respond in 10 and 20 working days. It did not provide any acknowledgement or apology for this in its formal responses, when this would have been appropriate.
  2. The stage 1 complaint response was provided by a repairs supervisor involved in the repairs, and the stage 2 complaint response was provided by a repairs manager. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy for the stage 1 response to be provided by an independent manager and for the stage 2 response to be provided by an assistant director or equivalent.
  3. The complaint responses were potentially impacted by this failing to follow process, as both were limited in their investigation and response to the substantive issues raised.
  4. The stage 1 response acknowledged issues but provided limited explanation about its investigation, what issues were and its decision-making. It lifted wording from a previous Ombudsman decision which was unnecessary and does not show it was providing a tailored response.
  5. The stage 2 response noted further issues the resident raised but detailed actions for a more limited number of issues and did not address others. While the landlord was positive to focus on recent issues the resident raised, it should have shown it addressed the issues she raised in her complaint and reviewed the service she had experienced in respect to them.
  6. The landlord should take the opportunities presented by its complaints procedure to effectively resolve issues, acknowledge any issues, and improve service. The landlord did not do this and it failed to follow process, delayed in responses, and failed to clearly investigate and address the issues raised by the resident from a service perspective. This was not in line with good practise or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, including in respect to explaining decisions on each complaint and the reasons.
  7. The landlord was also unhelpful, and confused matters, to treat the resident’s repairs reports as a continuous complaint, which may have been avoided if it had followed its complaint process more clearly. This seems to have been due to a positive desire to focus on resolving the resident’s repairs reports, but this seems to have been counterproductive and unhelpful. The landlord failed to take advantage of the certainty and clarity that effective investigation and response via the complaint procedure can bring to a resident, particularly when they are vulnerable.
  8. The landlord’s complaint handling will have caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident, undermined her confidence, and delayed resolution for some issues. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  9. The landlord’s complaint handling indicates it is unclear how to properly manage, investigate and respond to complaints it receives. It is ordered to take steps to review its staff training needs, arrange appropriate training, and internally clarify processes staff should follow to comply with its policy in respect to response times and designated responders.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s further repairs reports about the roof, water ingress, mould treatment, a kitchen cupboard, cracks, a tree growing from under the property, door issues, window issues, follow-on bathroom works, the porch ceiling, replacement of windows that were not safety glass, fence and gate issues, loft issues, and replacement of a living room radiator.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in respect to bathroom cladding, a back door, skirting boards, worktops and internal doors.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to:
    1. apologise to the resident for its poor handling of her complaint.
    2. pay the resident £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified. This comprises £150 for the issues identified with the further repairs and £150 for the issues identified with its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to:
    1. inspect the loft in respect to the resident’s reports about the deteriorated and insufficient insulation and the previous tenant belongings.
    2. inspect the living room radiator to assess the contractor recommendation for it to be replaced.
  3. The landlord should then write to the resident with the outcome to the above, any action it is taking, and an appointment it has agreed with the resident if applicable.
  4. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to write to the resident about its position on damp and mould at the property and the outcome to its later commitment to investigate installation of a heater in the kitchen.
  5. The landlord is ordered, within 6 weeks, to take steps to review its staff training needs, arrange appropriate training, and internally clarify processes staff should follow to comply with its policy in respect to response times and designated responders. The landlord should provide evidence it has done so to the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord is recommended to review whether it is able to take any further action to repair the non-flush windows and draughty back door, and to also clarify when they are scheduled for renewal under its planned works scheme.
  7. The landlord is recommended to check roof works have been done in line with what was identified, review the resident’s concerns that a hole was not put in the roof for a downpipe, and check for any current ingress. It is then recommended to write to the resident about the outcome, any action it is taking, and an appointment it has agreed with the resident if applicable.
  8. The landlord is recommended to write to the resident about out its position on her request to replace the glass above doors.
  9. The landlord is recommended to review the resident’s reports about an outstanding letterbox repair.
  10. The landlord is recommended to review if there is any support it can provide to the resident in respect to painting or provision of a paint pack.
  11. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to clarify her current support needs and any reasonable adjustments and record these on its systems.