Newcastle City Council (202219798)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219798

Newcastle City Council

6 September 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. The resident’s request to be housed.
3. Repair works to the external brickwork of the property and plug sockets in the kitchen.
4. Trees located in the resident’s garden causing restricted light.
5. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which falls properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The resident has stated that part of his complaint is about the landlord’s response to his request to be rehoused. Rehousing requests which are undertaken on behalf of the Local Authority in accordance with its allocation policy are outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about rehousing under a local authority fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer the complaint about this issue to the LGSCO if he wishes to pursue it further.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
On 18 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The resident explained that he would like to receive compensation for overpaid rent for inadequate and substandard housing on the grounds of not enough natural light, not enough ventilation and damp and mould issues.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 June 2022. The landlord explained that it had a solution to resolve the mould in the bathroom whereby it would install plastic cladding. The landlord also stated that it would also overhaul both kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, replace the lost insulation and overhaul and fully clean the gutters at the property. The landlord agreed to arrange for an electrician to check the kitchen fittings and carry out an electrical test at the resident’s property. It also explained that it would fit a new shower and install vinyl flooring in the bathroom.
On 30 June 2022, the resident requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident stated that his complaint had not been fully addressed. The resident also stated that the repair history showed that there were issues with damp and mould at the property prior to the resident moving in.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 7 November 2022. The landlord stated that it arranged for an independent surveyor to visit and inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor recommended works to be completed in the kitchen, living room and bathroom. The works included replacing the skirting boards, replastering the walls, and applying mould resistant emulsion paint. The landlord stated it would arrange for the works to be carried out. The landlord also explained that it could not arrange for the trees to be removed.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated that his desired outcome was to move to a new property within his current area or, alternatively, for his current property to be repaired. The resident has also stated that he would like to receive compensation.
The landlord confirmed on 4 August 2023, that all the works referenced in its stage two complaint response to resolve the damp and mould issues were still outstanding. The resident has also told the Ombudsman that works to resolve the damp and mould are outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports damp and mould at the property.

The resident raised concerns that damp and mould was an issue at the property prior to him moving into the property in 2011. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until April 2022. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will not consider any specific events more than six months prior to when the resident submitted his complaint in April 2022. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this Service cannot investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matters arising.
The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the mould at the property is impacting his children’s health. The resident has also stated that damp and mould at the property resulted in his daughter getting asthma. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about his child’s injuries. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident and his family’s health. it would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. This service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his child’s injuries.
The landlord’s website provides information about the landlord’s approach to damp and mould. It explains that when a resident reports damp and mould at their property, the landlord would arrange for a technical surveyor to carry out a survey of the property. The landlord’s website states that the technical surveyor would assess the structure of the property and check the level of humidity at the property. The surveyor would also check that all extractor fans are working and ensure that the property is safe.
The resident initially submitted a complaint to the landlord about damp and mould at the property in April 2022. However, the Ombudsman has noted from the landlord’s repairs log for contextual reasons that there has been damp and mould issues at the resident’s property since 2012. The Ombudsman recognises that previous works which included replastering walls and overhauling the extractor fans were completed around October 2020 to help resolve the damp and mould and other works were completed in previous years. However, there is still damp and mould present at the resident’s property and further works were identified and required to resolve the damp and mould issue. The landlord’s independent surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 17 October 2022 and recommended several works including replacing the skirting boards and replastering the walls at the property. The damp and mould had been an ongoing issue at the property for a significant time. Therefore, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange for the surveyor to inspect the resident’s property sooner than it did.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 2 August 2023 to confirm whether it had carried out all the agreed works recommended by the independent surveyor, which were referenced in its stage 2 complaint response dated 7 November 2022. The landlord confirmed on 4 August 2023 that all the works to repair the damp and mould were still outstanding.
There has been a significant delay in the landlord completing the works to resolve the damp and mould issue. The landlord has not given an adequate explanation for the delay. The Ombudsman requires the landlord to draw up a schedule of the required works which includes approximate timescales of when the works will be carried out. The landlord has already confirmed that it needs to decant the resident and his family to complete the works. Therefore, the landlord should arrange for the decant to take place as soon as possible. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has mentioned that it does not have any suitable decant properties available. The landlord may need to consider options such as decanting the resident and his family to a hotel for a short period until a suitable property becomes available or using short-term let private accommodation. It is unacceptable for the resident and his family to remain in the property if it is not safe and/or is unfit for habitation. The landlord has a responsibility for safeguarding its residents.
The delay in resolving the damp and mould, would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman recognises that it must be very difficult for the resident and his family living in the property with damp and mould conditions for such a long period of time, especially as the resident’s children are also living at the property. The resident also told the landlord that his daughter has asthma and explained that the damp and mould was aggravating her symptoms. The landlord should have prioritised repairs/a temporary move in view of these health concerns.
The landlord initially also failed to signpost and provide the resident with information in its complaint responses on how to make a claim for his damaged personal belongings, and how to make a personal injury claim. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide the resident with details of how the resident could pursue a personal injury claim and damaged belongings claim to its liability insurer. The Ombudsman recently informed the resident in August 2023, that he would need to submit a claim through the landlord’s liability insurer for his damaged personal belongings. The Ombudsman also explained that he would need to make a separate personal injury claim about his child’s health if he wanted this aspect investigated. Since then, the resident recently received the landlord’s public liability insurer details in August 2023. It is recommended that the resident follows up with the landlord’s insurer if he wishes to pursue these issues further. Matters of insurance are outside the remit of the ombudsman and therefore we cannot comment on the outcome or handling of the resident’s claims to the landlord’s insurer.
The landlord has acknowledged during its own internal complaints process that there have been delays in completing the proposed works to resolve the damp and mould issue. However, the landlord has failed to apologise to the resident and offer the resident compensation to recognise the significant delays.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £2000 to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced, due to the landlord’s failure to resolve the damp and mould issue at the resident’s property. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a significant long-term impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repair works to the external brickwork of the property and plug sockets in the kitchen.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property and keeping it in good repair. The policy also explains that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the installation of electricity. The repairs and maintenance policy includes the following response timescales for its repairs:
1. Emergency repairs to be responded to within four hours.
2. Urgent repairs to be responded to within 1, 3 or 7 working days.
3. Routine repairs to be responded to within 15 working days.
4. Planned maintenance to be responded to within 40 working days.
The resident raised as part of his complaint that he was experiencing electrical issues at his property. He also raised that there were issues with the external brickwork, including a substantial crack. The landlord was responsible for dealing with the electrical issues at the property and repairing the external brick work as referenced in its repairs and maintenance policy.
Shortly after, the resident complained to the landlord about the need for an electrical test. The landlord tried to attend the property on 29 April 2022 to carry out an electrical test, however the resident or his family were not at the property on this occasion. In addition, the landlord also planned to visit the resident’s property on 17 May 2022. However, this visit was cancelled as the resident had to leave to go to work. The resident confirmed that the electrical test for the plug sockets was completed last year. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the electrical repair issue, as it attended in line with its timescale for routine repairs following the resident’s request for an electrical test. The initial two visits which were unsuccessful were outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord also attended the resident’s property to repair the external brickwork. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord carried out patch work on the external brickwork last year, however he mentioned that there was still an outstanding issue with the brick work. The landlord informed the Ombudsman on 15 August 2023, that the works to repair the external brickwork was still outstanding. The Ombudsman would have expected the works to repair the brickwork to be completed. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord is in the process of arranging a permanent move for the resident. It was planning to carry out the works when the resident moved out of the property. However, it was unreasonable for the resident and his family to remain living in the property with significant repair issues for an extended period of time.
As the works to repair the external brickwork are still outstanding. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repair works. The landlord should arrange for the external brickwork to be inspected and carry out the necessary repair works in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of trees located in the resident’s garden causing restricted light.

The landlord’s tree policy explains that trees will only be removed from council land if the tree is dead, dying, or dangerous. The policy explains that the decision will be based on a competent assessment by an arboriculturist.
The resident raised concerns with his landlord that multiple trees located near his property were restricting the light entering his property. In response to the concerns raised, the landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the trees. The surveyor’s report explained that there was no requirement for the landlord to undertake work on the trees. However, he recommended that the landlord should commission an arborist to determine an ongoing planned maintenance strategy for the trees.
The Ombudsman believes it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the trees and obtain a professional opinion. However, the Ombudsman would also have expected the landlord to carry out the surveyor’s recommendation of arranging for an arborist to inspect the trees. An arborist specialises in tree care and maintenance and can provide expert advice on the recommended care and maintenance for the trees. The arborist may even be able to provide a solution to reduce the light restriction such as cutting back the trees without destroying them.
As there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord arranged for an arborist to inspect the trees, there has been a service failure by the landlord in its handling of trees located near the property, causing restricted light. The landlord should arrange for the arborist to inspect the trees as soon as possible. The landlord should consider any recommendations made by the arborist and carry out any necessary maintenance to the tree in line with its tree policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 and stage 2 complaint within 10 working days.
The resident first submitted his complaint to the landlord on 18 April 2022. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 June 2022. This response was sent approximately 32 working days after the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord. The response time was late and not compliant with the code or the landlord’s own complaints policy.
On 30 June 2022, the resident requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaints process. It took around four months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response, which was provided on 7 November 2022. The landlord did not provide a reason for the considerable delay. As the landlord has not explained the reasons for this delay, the Ombudsman can only conclude that it was unreasonable. The delay would have caused significant inconvenience for the resident, as the resident was delayed in progressing his complaint to the Ombudsman because he needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
Given the significant delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response and the slight delay in issuing its stage 1 response. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation is appropriate to recognise the delay the resident experienced. It is also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case, although the delayed responses would have caused distress and inconvenience, there may be no permanent impact to the resident from this as the resident eventually received a final response letter from the landlord and was able to submit his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould within the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repair works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about restricted light from trees located near the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is to decant the resident and his family to alternative accommodation whilst the works to resolve the damp and mould at the property are completed.
The landlord is to draw up a schedule of the required works to resolve the damp and mould issues. The schedule is to include timescales of when the works will be completed. The timescales should be in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. A copy of the schedule should be sent to the resident and to this Service.
The landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for its handling of the damp and mould at the resident’s property. The apology should come from a senior director of the landlord.
The landlord to arrange for an arborist to inspect the trees located near the resident’s property. It should share the findings of this inspection with the resident and the Ombudsman and confirm what steps it will take following the inspection to resolve the tree issue.
The above orders should be complied with, within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to carry out a review into the resident’s case and identify any mistakes and improvements. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this service and the resident.
The landlord to arrange for the external brickwork to be inspected and then carry out any necessary repair works in line with its published repair timescales.
The above orders should be complied with, within eight weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £2000 compensation for its handling of reports of damp and mould within the resident’s property.
The landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for errors in its complaint handling.
These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review all its stage two responses issued between January and December 2022, to ensure actions it committed to have been completed on all cases.