Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202446323)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446323

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

4 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould at the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2010. The property is a 2-bed house. The resident lives there with his wife and children.
On 28 November 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. He said the property had significant damp issues and his family were overcrowded. The resident said he was unhappy with the way the landlord had dealt with reported ASB by his neighbour. He also said he had been waiting an unacceptable amount of time for his wife’s medical appeal on their priority banding to be rehoused.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 2 January 2025. It partially upheld his complaint and offered £125 compensation. No breakdown was given but it said the amount was for delays in repairs, the medical appeal hearing, complaint handling and the distress caused.
On 6 January 2025, the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 14 February 2025. It partly upheld the complaint and increased the offer of compensation to £150.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. He said the damp and mould and ASB had not been resolved and he would like to pay to have an independent damp survey on the property. The resident also said for the complaint to be resolved he would like the landlord to move him to a new larger property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Local authorities are only members of the Housing Ombudsman for their housing management activities. This relates to the provision and management of social housing. As there is no obligation on local authorities to own houses, allocations and nominations (where there is a reasonable preference) is not the management or provision of social housing.
This complaint concerned the resident’s desired outcome to be moved by management transfer by the landlord. This is within our jurisdiction and covered in this report. However, it also concerns the resident’s appeal for his priority banding on his wife’s medical grounds. That is not a provision or management of social housing and so is outside our jurisdiction under paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme. The resident can complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about her application to move home under part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This includes the assessment of the medical grounds to move property.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows the resident reported damp and mould repairs from 2019. There is no evidence of the repairs being raised with the landlord as a complaint until 2024. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme (the Scheme) says we may not consider a complaint about issues not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising; however, this report will centre on the landlord’s handling of repairs from December 2022. This was when damp and mould repairs were raised again following a break in reports by the resident in 2021.
The evidence also shows the resident reported ASB incidents by his neighbour since 2019. He previously brought a complaint to us on the same issue (202003469) for the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB between 2019 to 2020. We determined this in February 2021. As per paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme this report will centre on the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from October 2023 and its response to these. Any reference to events before this date is for context only.

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

Between December 2022 and October 2024, the landlord attended the property for damp and mould repairs. The repair log shows the following:
1. Fungi wash for 1 bedroom, and the landing of the property was raised on 19 December 2022 and marked complete.
2. A new kitchen extractor fan was raised on 23 January 2023 and marked complete.
3. On 3 July 2023, fungi wash to bedroom walls was raised and marked complete.
4. On 1 August 2023, fungi wash to walls was raised but the repair was marked as refused by the resident.
5. On 28 February 2024, a damp inspection was raised but not marked as complete.
6. On 29 October 2024, an inspection for damp in both bedrooms, living room, kitchen and hallway was raised and marked as complete. Repairs for plastering in the property and installation of vents were raised but not marked as complete.
We asked the landlord to provide the details of when the resident raised each of the repairs, but the landlord did not provide this.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for internal walls and plasterwork at the property. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says when damp is reported an inspection will be raised within 24 hours. The procedure also says 4 months after a damp and mould repair a post work inspection will take place to check if the damp and mould has returned.
The landlord attended the property on 28 November 2024 and assessed damp and mould in the living room. On the same day the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. There had been damp and mould issues at the property for the last 13 years and the landlord had ignored the rising damp issue.
2. There were 5 people living in a 2-bedroom property.
3. The resident had refused repairs as he was concerned about the safety of his belongings whilst the work was carried out.
4. He had experienced ASB issues with his neighbour since 2019.
5. He had cancelled the repairs booked in for 2 months’ time due to health and safety concerns.
6. The resident asked if the landlord would assess the risk and if asbestos was present in the property before repair works took place.
7. His wife suffered with severe anxiety and depression.
8. To resolve the situation, he would like to be moved to a larger property.
On 2 January 2025, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said:
1. The property was categorised as “Cat 1” and added to the damp watch register 2 years previously. It gave a list of completed repairs for damp and mould on the property.
2. The landlord would arrange for the collection and storage of the resident’s belongings during the damp and mould repairs.
3. Items left in the property would be covered during the repairs and any mess would be cleaned by the landlord.
4. Risk assessments would be carried out. Asbestos records would be checked and, if needed, any asbestos would be removed prior to repair works.
5. The landlord gave the criteria for a managed move and said it was unable to offer this to the resident.
6. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £125 compensation. It said this was combined for the delay in processing the medical review appeal for property banding, repair and complaint delays and distress caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £100-200 for a service failure that caused a resident distress and inconvenience. It says payments above £200 will be for moderate to severe failures where no attempts have been made to put things right and has adversely affected the resident. It’s complaints policy says for cases that involve more than one council service it will ensure a collective response is given.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 shows it made attempts to tackle the damp and mould at the property. It was fair of the landlord to offer collection and storage of the resident’s belongings, for the repairs, due to his concerns. It also addressed his worry of asbestos and offered compensation in line with its policy. The landlord gave the resident an answer for his request for a managed move, which was reasonable.
However, the resident had been reporting damp and mould concerns for 2 years prior to his complaint. There is no evidence the landlord monitored the damp and mould at the property and completed a post work inspection as per its policy. This was a failing by the landlord.
The resident escalated his complaint on 6 January 2025. He said the 2 fungi washes the landlord marked as completed did not take place. The resident said he had not been told his property was given category 1 damp and mould status. He also said he was concerned about the safety of his belongings if they were put into storage and he would like to be moved to a larger property.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 14 February 2025. It said:
1. A temporary move to another property was available in order for the damp and mould repairs to be completed.
2. It was unable to offer a permanent managed move for the resident.
3. The category 1 damp and mould status given to the resident’s property was not permanent and subject to change following repair works. It was not procedure to tell residents if their property is given this status, however the landlord would review this. The landlord had raised an inspection to identify the level of damp and mould in the property.
4. It partially upheld the complaint and said its communication about repairs and the category 1 property status could have been better. It increased the compensation to £150 in total.
The landlord’s decant policy says it could offer a temporary decant if repairs required to a property would cause a resident unreasonable disruption.
The landlord’s response at stage 2 offered a further option of a temporary move to the resident for the repairs to be completed. It also arranged a review of the damp and mould status of the property. This was a reasonable response. However, due to the lack of information provided by the landlord we were unable to assess the landlord’s repairs against its policy. The landlord failed to recognise the impact on the resident living with damp and mould over a long period of time.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered put things right. To do this we consider our Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord made some attempts at resolving the damp and mould at the property. It responded to the resident’s concerns and gave solutions to enable further repairs. This was reasonable of the landlord.
However, the landlord failed to follow its damp and mould policy and complete a post works inspection. Living with damp and mould caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The resident disputed some of the repairs evidenced and he also refused repairs. The period of time and reoccurrence of damp and mould also led to a loss of trust between the resident and landlord and the resident declining repair works. This leads to a determination of maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay £300 compensation. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has made some attempts to put things right for the resident but has failed to address the detriment and resolve the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident reported ASB to the landlord 13 times between October 2023 and September 2024. It logged each ASB report as an incident, but it did not open an ASB case during this time. On 4 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said his reports of ASB by the neighbour were either unsubstantiated or not classed as ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy says not every reported allegation will be accepted as ASB. Examples of this are minor lifestyle differences between neighbours and reasonable domestic noise. The landlord’s ASB policy also says it will refer suitable cases to mediation where available.
The resident complained on 28 November 2024. He said the landlord had not dealt with the ASB he reported over the years from his neighbour.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 2 January 2025. It reassured the resident of its handling of the ASB and said it removed the case officer from the case 4 years earlier when he first raised the potential conflict of interest.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 shows it tried to reassure the resident of its handling of ASB reported 4 years earlier. However, it failed to reassure him about recent events. It did not explain why it had not opened an ASB case following the resident’s 13 reports of ASB over the last 12 months. The landlord also failed to review what tools it considered to help the resident’s relationship with his neighbour, such as mediation.
On 6 January 2025, the resident escalated his complaint. He said he had footage of the case officer leaving his neighbours property 3 days after the landlord said he had been taken off the ASB case 4 years before.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 14 February 2025. It apologised for the confusion and confirmed the case officer did visit his neighbour for a follow up visit. The landlord advised the resident to keep reporting the ASB incidents when they happen.
The landlord’s response at stage 2 addressed the historical issue of the case worker knowing the resident’s neighbour and this was reasonable. However, it failed to review its recent actions in response to the resident’s ASB reports against its ASB policy. The lack of review of its recent actions caused inconvenience to the resident.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows an ASB case was opened on 18 July 2025 for the resident and his neighbour.
In summary, the landlord recorded the resident’s ASB reports about his neighbour. It did not record what the incidents involved and its decision not to open an ASB case. It did not record if mediation was considered to help resolve the ongoing issues between the neighbours. When it replied to the resident at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process it focused on historical events rather than the recent issues. This leads to a determination of maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay £300 compensation. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings and offer suitable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 28 November 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. It responded on 2 January 2024, which was a delay of around 12 working days compared with the landlord’s complaints policy. Within its response it acknowledged the delay in responding and apologised. The landlord said the complaint delay was part of the £125 compensation offered. This was reasonable of the landlord.
The resident escalated his complaint on 6 January 2025. The resident agreed a stage 2 response date with the landlord for 14 February 2025 and it responded on that date.
The landlord’s recognition of the delay in responding at stage 1 and offer of compensation to put things right leads to a determination of reasonable redress. This means the landlord’s action for the failing put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reported ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident for its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a senior manager for the failures outlined above.
2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £300 for its handling of damp and mould repairs at the property.
  2. £300 for its handling of reports of ASB.
3. Conduct a new damp and mould survey on the property. Following the survey, provide the resident with the findings and plan for either a temporary decant and/or storage for the resident’s belongings if this is necessary.
4. Create a schedule of works to resolve the damp and mould at the property.
The compensation balance must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.

Recommendations

To pay the resident the £150 it offered in its complaint process if it has not done so already.
The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making the above payment to the resident.