From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202440270)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440270

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

23 July 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:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a water leak.

b.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to address internal damage caused by the water leak and its response to the resident’s concerns about a pest control issue.

c.      We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord was a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat within a high-rise building. We understand that the property above was occupied by a leaseholder. We will refer to the leaseholder in this report as the neighbour.
  2. The resident raised dissatisfaction on 3 June 2024 about the landlord’s handling of her reports about an unresolved water leak, and its handling of associated repairs. The resident expressed frustration about the length of time it was taking the landlord to address this. And mentioned the potential impact to her health arising from mould growing in the bathroom. The landlord’s complaint handler asked its surveyor to contact the resident to see if a complaint “could be avoided”. The landlord logged the matter as a complaint on 17 June 2024.
  3. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2024, which it upheld. In summary, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience, the delay, and the distress caused to the resident by failures it had identified in its handling of the repairs. It said it was committed to resolving the matter and would ensure the repairs were completed.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 17 September 2024 expressing her frustration that the landlord had not yet fixed the leak. She suggested it was unreasonable for it to expect her to continue living with mould and a hole in the bathroom ceiling. She referenced reporting an issue with rats in the walls and ceilings and said she was concerned that rats could enter the property through the hole in the ceiling.
  5. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024. The landlord:

a.     Accepted there had been a lack of communication with the resident regarding the status of the repair, which had resulted in frustration and distress.

b.     Apologised for the delay in resolving the leak into the property. It said this was due to issues gaining access to the property above. But it reassured the resident it had it had now arranged an appointment with the neighbour to fix the leak.

c.      Committed to:

  1. Completing the repairs to address the leak within the next 3 weeks.
  2. Carrying out the following, once it had fixed the leak:

(1)  Completing a mould wash.

(2)  Replastering and redecorating the bathroom ceiling.

  1. Resolving the rat infestation.
  2. Taking learnings from the complaint.
  1. The resident brought the case to us in January 2025. The resident explained the landlord fixed the leak in November 2024.But said it had not carried out the mould wash, had not made good and redecorated the bathroom ceiling, or resolved the pest issue. The resident said the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs, resolve the pest issue, and pay compensation.
  2. The resident told us on 14 July 2025 that the landlord had completed the mould wash in May 2024 but had still not carried out any remedial works to the bathroom ceiling.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has explained that she has been reporting leaks through the bathroom ceiling since October 2021. We would ordinarily only investigate matters brought to the landlord by a resident as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the issue occurring. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that complaints must be made no later than 12 months after the date on which the matter occurred.
  2. It is unclear from the landlord’s complaint responses what timeframe the landlord considered. But we consider it is reasonable to all parties, for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues between October 2023 and the date the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted in October 2024. This is because the landlord’s records are silent between October 2022 and October 2023, so we cannot determine what action the landlord was taking over this timeframe. And the resident has provided no evidence that she was actively pursuing the substantive issues with the landlord between those dates.
  3. For clarity, this report may reference historical events as context to the complaint, but these events will not be assessed.
  4. The resident has referenced that the landlord’s failure to resolve the substantive issues in a timely manner has impacted on her health, resulting in her having to give up work. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. But we may consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a water leak

  1. We have included the following events as context to the substantive complaint:

a.     The resident raised a repair request with the landlord in October 2021 after the corner of the bathroom ceiling fell down. The landlord satisfied itself there was no leak coming from the property above, so committed to repairing the ceiling.

b.     The landlord attended to repair the ceiling in November 2021 but found the ceiling wet. The resident was unable to take time off work until March 2022 for the landlord to investigate the likely cause of this.

c.      The landlord did not identify any leaks when it investigated in April 2022. The resident fixed the ceiling herself in May 2022. But noticed the ceiling was wet again in October 2022. The resident states the landlord sent out 2 roofers who were unable to help, as she lived on the ground floor. We were unable to verify from the evidence provided by the parties, what happened between then and October 2023.

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation to repair the leak within a reasonable timeframe, under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. What the landlord considers to be a reasonable timeframe, is set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. This policy states that the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, small non-urgent repairs within 25 working days, and large non-urgent repairs as planned works.
  2. The landlord received a report from the resident about a leak through the bathroom ceiling on 4 October 2023. The landlord made immediate arrangements to investigate this, which shows it was treating the resident’s report with the priority it deserved. The landlord traced the leak in June 2024 to an ill fitted wet room in the property above. However, the landlord did not resolve the leak until November 2024, which significantly exceeded the expected response timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  3. Our investigation identified several occasions where the landlord’s services appropriately adhered to its policy. For example:

a.     The landlord identified the source of the leak on 22 June 2024 was from the neighbour’s wet room. The neighbour tried to fix the leak the same weekend, as this was their responsibility to address, being a leaseholder. We were encouraged that the landlord deferred to its housing team on 25 June 2024 after the resident reported the neighbour’s attempts to fix the leak had failed. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s property in a timely manner to inform its next steps.

b.     The landlord made a pragmatic decision on 30 July 2024 to carry out extensive works to the neighbour’s wet room in default. This shows the landlord was taking a positive course of action to resolve the leak for the resident and to prevent further damage to its asset.

c.      The neighbour did not consent to the landlord carrying out any works to resolve the leak until 16 October 2024. It is not possible to determine from the available evidence if the parties could have reached agreement in a timelier manner. But it was positive the landlord progressed the works to the neighbouring property promptly, upon gaining consent.

d.     The landlord fixed the leak within the timeframe the landlord had committed to within the stage 2 complaint response.

  1. However, our investigation also found several failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. This includes:

a.     The landlord took proactive and timely steps between 4 October 2023 and 10 October 2023 to gain access the neighbour’s property, so it could investigate the source of the leak. However, the neighbour did not provide access. The landlord did not do anything more to investigate the source of the leak until 4 June 2024, which was after the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. This suggests there was an inadequate level of oversight by the landlord over the repair, which delayed resolution for the resident.

b.     The landlord did not proactively contact the resident over the timeframe of the complaint, with updates. This resulted in the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord, causing her inconvenience. We note the landlord recognised this was a failing itself, during its own internal complaint process.  

c.      The landlord recognised there was mould on the bathroom ceiling on 17 June 2024 and committed to completing a mould treatment once the leak had been fixed. However, the landlord ought to have completed the mould treatment as soon as it became aware of the issues, given the potential health risks to the resident. It was unreasonable that it did not complete the mould wash until May 2025. This left the resident at continued risk from mould spores.

d.     The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered if there was any interim support it was able to offer the resident, while it was negotiating with the neighbour for access to complete the repairs it had identified.

  1. The landlord recognised during its own internal complaint investigation, that there had been failings in its handling of the substantive issues, for which it apologised and committed to a course of action to put things right. However, it did not identify all of the failings we identified and it failed to address the detriment that was caused to the resident.
  2. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a water leak and its handling of associated repairs.
  3. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a water leak, and its handling of associated repairs. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range, where there have been errors by the landlord which have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time.

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to address internal damage caused by the water leak and its response to the resident’s concerns about a pest control issue.

  1. To avoid repetition, events that happened prior to the substantive complaint are set out for context at paragraph 13 of this report.
  2. The resident reported damage to the bathroom ceiling to the landlord in October 2023. The landlord did not fully investigate the cause of damage until June 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord left the resident with a damaged ceiling over this timeframe, without a plan for resolving this.
  3. The landlord’s internal records from 17 June 2024 show that it committed to patch repairing and redecorating the bathroom ceiling, once the source of the leak had been identified and fixed. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it was responsible for keeping the ceilings and plasterwork in repair but it was not responsible for their decoration. So, this this was positive.
  4. The resident reminded the landlord on 14 August 2024 that there was an issue with rats in the building and expressed concern that rats could enter the property via the “large hole” in the bathroom ceiling. This is the first time either party refer to the damage to the ceiling as “a hole”, during the timeframe of the complaint. The evidence shows the landlord’s pest control was baiting the block around this time. But the landlord did not reassure the resident about the steps it’s pest control team were already taking to address the pest infestation in communal areas of the building. The landlord did not consider whether it should arrange pest proofing within the property, as an interim measure. This would have been a reasonable course of action in the circumstances.
  5. The resident raised concern again about rats being able to assess the property, in the stage 2 complaint on 17 September 2024. We were encouraged that the landlord offered reassurance in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024 that its pest control team were aware of the rat infestation and were working to resolve this. But it again failed to consider if pest proofing was needed as an interim measure.
  6. We would have expected the landlord to have completed the ceiling repairs within a reasonable timeframe of it fixing the leak. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it should complete small non-urgent works, such as “patch repairs”, within 25 working days. The landlord fixed the leak in November 2024. But according to the resident, the remedial works to the bathroom ceiling remain were still outstanding as of 14 July 2025. This is unfair and caused the resident continued distress and inconvenience.
  7. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address internal damage caused by the water leak and its response to the resident’s concerns about a pest control issue. This is because our investigation found several failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive matters, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time.
  8. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £250 compensation. This compensation is in accordance with our remedies guidance, as previously referenced.

We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

  1. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of individuals”. This definition is in line our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident raised dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues on 3 June 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge receipt of stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, setting out the expected timescale for issuing a full complaint response. However, we note the landlord’s complaint’s handler asked its surveyor to make contact with the resident, to see if the complaint could be “avoided”.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it places a “strong emphasis” on contacting the customer at the early stage of receiving a complaint and “will look to resolve the matter quickly, without the need for escalation to the formal complaints process”. We consider that early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents is key to effective complaint handling. But it is not in the spirit of the code for a landlord to try to “avoid” logging an expression of dissatisfaction as a stage 1 complaint. This was unfair and delayed access to our services.
  4. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2024. It sent the complaint acknowledgement 4 working days later, in line with its policy. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement, unless it agrees an extension with the resident. Under the Code, extensions should not exceed a further 10 working days. The landlord extended the timescale for issuing the full complaint response to 12 July 2024 to allow more time for engagement with the resident. This was in line with our expectations. The landlord met the resident on 2 July 2024 to discuss the complaint, which was good practice. It issued the stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2024 as it had committed.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that where it identifies services have not met required standards, it will apologise and will rectify the mistake or problem within an agreed timeframe. The landlord apologised for the failings it identified at stage 1 and committed to “discussing the matter with relevant teams and external contractors to get the matter resolved”. And said it would “continue to work for your repairs”. But it did not set out its plan or its expected timescales, for achieving this. This was inappropriate and left the resident unclear of the landlord’s intentions.
  6. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 17 September 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will decide if a complaint can be logged at stage 2, within 5 working days. And will issue the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of its acknowledgment. The landlord logged the complaint at stage 2 on 18 September 2024 but we cannot verify if the landlord sent an acknowledgement. However, the landlord did issue the stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024, which was 20 working days from the date the landlord accepted the stage 2 complaint.
  7. The landlord apologised for the failings it identified at stage 2 and committed to taking learnings from the complaint, which was positive. It explained that it had scheduled works to fix the leak and gave the resident an estimated time for completing this. This was appropriate. It noted that a job been ben raised to complete a mould wash, and to replaster and redecorate the bathroom ceiling once it had fixed the leak. But it did not give an estimated completion date for completed these follow-on works, to manage the resident’s expectations. And it provided limited information concerning how and when it would resolve the pest control issue, other than to say work was “underway”. Therefore, the landlord’s complaint response was inadequate.
  8. The Code requires landlords to have processes in place for tracking completion of outstanding actions and commitments given during its internal complaint process. And for providing updates to residents. It is evident that the landlord’s complaints team were actively monitoring completion of the repairs to address the water leak. It is reasonable to conclude there was an issue with the landlord’s monitoring after this, given it did not complete the mould wash until May 2025 and the ceiling repairs are still to be completed.
  9. There were several failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which were likely to have caused distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty to the resident. When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of complaint.
  10. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance, as previously referenced.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a water leak

b.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to address internal damage caused by the water leak and to resolve a pest control issue.

c.      The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our websites.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay £950 compensation directly to the resident. This compensation is broken down as follows:

a.     £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a water leak, and its handling of associated repairs.

b.     £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the ceiling. 

c.      £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord must write to the resident with an action plan (with timescales for action), for repairing and decorating the bathroom ceiling, which it committed to completing at stage 2. The landlord should aim to complete these works within 25 working days of the date of this report, in line with its repairs policy. If the landlord is unable to complete these works within this timeframe, it must explain its reasons to the resident and to us, and commit to providing regular updates to the resident.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reflect on its approach to early resolution. And satisfy itself that it is logging complaints in line with the requirements of the Code, where a resident raises dissatisfaction about its actions, lack of action, or with its services.