Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202436061)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436061

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

29 August 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs including:
  1. the beading and render on the exterior of a window at the rear of the property.
  2. her request for a radiator in the kitchen to be relocated.
  3. in the communal areas including the bin chute.
  4. to the area to the exterior of the block.
2. concerns about not receiving services for which she was paying by way of a service charge.
3. concerns about the lack of communal storage.
4. concerns about fire safety.
5. concerns about a notice regarding belongings left in communal arears.
6. reports of pest infestations.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord, which is a local council. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor maisonette in a low-rise block of 12 maisonettes. While the landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident it has noted that she advised it that her son has a disability and of mobility issues.
We understand the resident made a complaint about the landlord in person on 24 October 2024. The resident noted her complaint concerned a number of issues including:
1. The external beading and render to the rear of the property was missing. This was causing damp in the rooms affected and making them extremely cold.
2. The resident wanted the landlord to re-locate a radiator in the kitchen.
3. The service charges were unrealistic.
4. Other blocks had additional storage facilities. The resident said the landlord should provide similar storage or reduce their rent.
Later that month the resident raised a number of further points relating to issues about fire safety; flea and pigeon infestations; concerns about areas around the block; and mould in the communal stairway.
On 16 January 2025 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The main points were:
1. It confirmed it had inspected the property on 7 November 2024 and found works were required to make good the render above the rear window frame. It confirmed it had completed these works on 15 January 2025.
2. It had moved the radiator in the kitchen on 10 December 2024.
3. It had historically delivered CCTV services without charge. It said some service charges were now being applied, and these were the actual cost of delivering the services. It explained CCTV was not standard across its blocks and the systems would need to be maintained/serviced. It said this service was chargeable.
4. It confirmed that two other named blocks had sheds within their drying areas. It added it had shut off the sheds for the resident’s block around 20 years ago (which it said was before any of the current tenants had moved into the block). It explained that residents moving into this block accepted the properties as seen and sheds were not part of their tenancy.
5. It gave a response to the resident’s fire safety concerns after advice from its fire team.
6. It explained the purpose of the notice it had sent to residents which said allowed it to remove and dispose of items. It explained it did not deem the sending of such letter to be harassment nor did it believe it was written in a threatening manner.
7. It confirmed there was adequate emergency lighting within the block and, in the event of power loss within the communal area, emergency lighting would continue to run.
8. It confirmed the handrails in place in the communal areas met the appropriate regulations. It added from the photos the resident had that there was signage in place identifying areas of potential slip hazard. It said it would arrange an inspection to assess the current condition.
9. Following the inspection of 7 November 2024, it had raised further works to remove all loose plaster from the landing, walls and ceiling on the communal stairs. It added it had completed these works on 28 November 2024.
10. It had asked its estates team to inspect the communal area and raised cleaning work as appropriate.
11. It had asked its pest control team to investigate the flea infestation that the resident had reported.
12. An inspection had confirmed there was no subsidence in the grounds around the block. It confirmed resurfacing works carried out at a neighbouring block had been completed due to an underground water leak.
13. In relation to the rat infestation, it said it had not detected any defects in the drainage system during a previous inspection. It said it would pass the concerns about an infestation to its pest control team for investigation.
14. It confirmed it was currently exploring options to eradicate the pigeon faeces but it had no further updates at that time. It added it would keep residents informed.
15. The bin chute was no longer in use, but it would explore the resident’s reports of mould.
On 11 February 2025 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
On 20 April 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The main points were:
1. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair to the render to the exterior of the window. It said this repair was initially reported to it in 2019 when the property was void. It said it should have taken action then but did not do so and subsequently, during the pandemic, had undertaken only emergency repairs. The landlord said this had a knock-on effect with its service delivery which inevitably caused lengthy delays. It added it was satisfied this repair had now been completed.
2. In relation to the bin chute, it had raised a works order to renew the board and treat. It added it had completed these works on 18 February 2025.
3. It explained it had undertaken a full consultation in October 2024 relating to the introduction of service charges. It confirmed it was not currently charging residents for a parking barrier as there was not one in place.
4. It confirmed the rent charged was for the occupation of the property not for external storage. It said it therefore would not agree to the resident’s request to reduce her rent.
5. The landlord said it disagreed with the resident’s assessment that the wording within the Tort notice issued was threatening. It explained it had a duty to ensure the health and safety of its tenants therefore it reserved the right to contact its residents if it felt that there had been a breach within the legislation.
6. It said the resident should contact pest control in relation to the flea infestation. It added it was reviewing the options available to it regarding the pigeon infestation and said it would be in touch with residents in due course.
7. The landlord confirmed it had completed the roofing works to the communal area. It apologised that it had previously said the plastering had been completed when it had not. It apologised for giving that incorrect information. It assured her this work had now been completed. It added that the painting of this area had been passed to its internal painting programme to be completed within that financial year.
8. It confirmed it had inspected the grounds on 2 April 2025 and had identified that the paved bank area needed infill to fill in the missing areas. It said it understood these works were completed on 9 April 2025.
9. In relation to emergency lighting, it said the last work order raised to rectify a failed emergency light was in June 2024 (specifically for the area adjacent to flat number 9). It said it had carried out its periodic inspection of emergency lighting in May 2024, with no further recommendations for improvement. It said it also carried out monthly checks and the most recent check, on 6 March 2025, had confirmed that all emergency lighting was working efficiently.
10. It said, in the event of a fire, the fire service would attend fully equipped to manage and resolve the situation. It said, as outlined in the fire risk assessment carried out on 3 January 2024, it was generally not necessary to provide fire extinguishers in the common parts of blocks of flats.
11. It said it understood the resident’s concerns in relation to the stay put policy but emphasized this policy was in place to protect the safety of residents should a fire occur. It said it had been developed in line with fire safety guidelines and was designed to minimize the risks to residents by keeping them in a safe location until the fire service arrived to manage the situation. It further confirmed that, in the events of a fire, the vents between properties (which were intumescent vents) would seal when exposed to significant heat.
When the resident approached us, she said she was paying service charges for grounds maintenance and communal cleaning services she did not receive. She said the landlord had completed the communal repairs as well as the repair to the render to the exterior of the property. As an outcome, the resident told us she would like the grounds maintenance and cleaning to be done as well as for the landlord to address the pigeon infestation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Scheme explains at paragraph 42.a that we may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Therefore, we have not considered the complaint about the landlord not providing grounds maintenance and cleaning services. It is open to the resident to make a fresh complaint to the landlord about these matters and bring the complaint to us when she has completed its complaints procedure.

Scope of the investigation

We cannot consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges nor whether the amount being charged is reasonable. This is a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which can make determinations on the liability to pay a service charge. A tribunal can also decide whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and, if so, whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.

Reports of repairs

The tenancy agreement says the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair (including windows). It says it must keep in repair and proper working order the common parts which includes landings, stairs and rubbish chutes.
The landlord published a guide to its repairs responsibilities. This says it will always try to offer a convenient appointment for the repair work or inspection to be undertaken. It does not include timescales for repairs.

The beading and render on the exterior of a window at the rear of the property

The resident told us that she had reported the repair to the exterior of the property in the 2 winters leading up to her complaint in October 2024. We have not seen these reports but we note, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it had been aware of this issue since 2019, before the resident moved in. The resident said the lack of repair led to the room being cold and damp and we can see that the landlord treated the room for mould in September 2023.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord tried to visit the property a few days later but did not gain access. The landlord subsequently inspected the property on 7 November 2024 and completed the appropriate repairs on 15 January 2025, almost 3 months after the resident raised the complaint. We have seen no evidence to suggest why this repair might have been reasonably delayed. We note an unsuccessful visit on 28 October 2024 but have not seen evidence the resident was told about that visit in advance. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed this up with the resident following that failed visit, rather than put the onus on her to make contact again.
It took the landlord almost 6 years to complete the repair to the external render repair after the resident moved in. It would have been appropriate for it to have taken action when the property was empty to carry out this repair. The landlord explained some of that delay was due to its decision to carry out only emergency repairs during the pandemic. Even taking that into account, the time taken to complete the repair was not reasonable. The evidence suggests that its failure to do so meant the resident was living with a cold and damp room during the colder months of each year. This would likely caused her distress, frustration and inconvenience.
While the landlord recognised the impact on her and apologised, it did not consider if financial compensation was appropriate in line with its compensation policy. This policy says that the landlord will consider making a monetary payment as a gesture of goodwill where service delivery failings cause exceptional inconvenience, stress, disturbance or annoyance. It explains this could include where there were delays in undertaking a repair.
Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Financial compensation of £450is appropriate in this case for the likely inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by this delay. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the household but did not have a permanent impact.
The landlord made a decision not to compensate the resident for items she had purchased to combat the cold such as thermal blinds. It explained that was because she had not brought these costs to its attention previously and the time that had elapsed. This decision was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy which says such costs must be evidenced, have been reasonably incurred and proof of such loss be provided.
The resident told us that, while the repair had improved matters, the room was still cold, and the window “whistled” when it was windy. We have made an order for the landlord to reinspect the room and window and carry out appropriate repairs to reduce any problems with the cold and a draught.

Request for a radiator in the kitchen to be relocated

Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the radiator on 1 November 2024 and agreed to move it. It said it needed specialist pipes and noted on 6 December 2024 that it had had problems with the supply of these. We understand this work was completed on 10 December 2024. We consider this timescale to be reasonable given the landlord needed to obtain particular parts to complete the work.

Repairs to the communal areas including the bin chute

The resident raised various repairs to the stairwell in the communal area in a follow up to her complaint on 25 October 2024. She mentioned mould and plaster that was peeling. She also said the area was dirty including the walls.
Following the complaint, the landlord raised an inspection and one-off clean of the stairwell. The inspection took place on 7 November 2024 when the landlord raised works to remove all loose plaster from the landing, walls and ceiling on the communal stairs. We understand these works were completed on 28 November 2024. That was within a reasonable timescale.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to raise a one-off clean of the stairwell. In February 2025 its maintenance team confirmed it had “swept the stairs today to clear all leaves and mud and also glass”. However, that description does not include any cleaning of the walls which the resident had expressed concerns about. We have seen no evidence that the landlord followed this up. An order has been made for the landlord to inspect the stairwell and, if appropriate, to arrange a deep clean of the area. We note the landlord gave details in its stage 2 complaint response of where the resident could report such issues in the future. This was an appropriate step to take to make sure that her concerns were dealt with by the appropriate team.
In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £50 is appropriate for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to ensure any clean included all areas of concern.
The resident also raised a problem with mould in a bin chute in her follow up correspondence of 25 October 2024. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord raised an inspection and works to treat the mould. In January 2025 it decided to replace the board covering the chute and paint it. That was a reasonable response to this matter given the bin chute was no longer in use and in an open, non-habitable communal area.

Repairs to the area to the exterior of the block

The resident raised various issues with the area to the exterior of the block in her correspondence of 25 October 2024. This included that re-surfacing was needed at the rear of the building due to cracks. She said that children had fallen and had been injured. She added she thought there were subsidence issues in the area also.
In response the landlord clarified that it had not completed resurfacing works to a different block in error. We have seen an email which confirmed an underground water burst at a different block which had the resurfacing work done. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained it did not have a contractor in place to undertake that work at that time so was unable to provide a timescale as to when the work would be completed. It added these were programmed works and, as soon as a contractor was in place, it would schedule these works. It added it would attend on 16 January 2025 to see what could be done to make the area safe. That was a reasonable response to ensure the area was safe while awaiting planned works.
While we have not seen any evidence of an inspection in January 2025, in its complaint responses the landlord said it had carried out an inspection on 2 April 2025 of the grounds around the close. It confirmed there was no subsidence, but it had identified works to infill the paved bank area. We understand this work was completed on 9 April 2025.
There was delay by the landlord in responding to the concerns about the areas around the block. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected and carried out such routine repairs within 28 days. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £50 is appropriate for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by this delay.
We note the landlord responded to the resident’s report of children being injured in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained the affected residents would need to contact its insurance team for further information or make a legal claim. That was an appropriate response.

Concerns about the lack of communal storage

The resident raised concerns that other blocks had external storage whilst hers did not. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it had decommissioned storage for the block some 20 years ago before any of the current residents had moved into the block. It said that residents had accepted the properties as seen when viewing them and the tenancy agreements made no reference to external storage. It said it would not reduce rents by 5% to reflect the lack of storage. It added that the rent charge was for the occupation of the property, not for external storage. The landlord’s response was reasonable.

Concerns about fire safety

The resident raised several fire safety issues including the lack of fire extinguishers; emergency lighting, and its stay put policy. In responding the landlord sought advice from its fire safety team. It gave detailed explanations of why it did not provide fire extinguishers; about how often it tested the emergency lighting and gave an assurance about how long they would operate on back up power. It also explained all front doors (which would be fire doors) were inspected on a twelve-monthly basis by its fire risk assessment contractor. It also gave an assurance that final exit doors did not need to be fire doors (as they led directly to a place of safety).
In relation to the stay put policy, the landlord said it understood the resident’s concerns but emphasised this policy was in place to protect the safety of residents should a fire occur. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have provided her with a copy of its most recent fire risk assessment. We note the local council publishes a ‘safety in your home Information pack’ which includes information about fire safety. We have recommended that the landlord share a copy of this pack with the resident (this can also be found on its website). We recommend it provide a copy of its most recent fire risk assessment to the resident also. These documents may provide independent assurance to the resident about the landlord’s fire safety measures.

Concerns about a notice regarding belongings left in communal arrears

On 15 October 2024 the landlord issued a notice to residents in the block asking them to remove any personal belongings from communal areas. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained it had a duty of care and a legal responsibility to control the communal areas of its residential buildings. It said its policy was for all communal residential buildings as communal areas form part of fire escapes and protected escape areas for all residents within the buildings. It said it did not deem the sending of such letter to be harassment nor was it written in a threatening manner. It explained further that it sent the notice to ensure the safety of its residents and to warn those that did not remove their belongings about the action it would take.
Legislation deals with a landlord’s right to remove possessions that belong to third parties under the Tort (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. This says that a landlord must, before removing items left on its property, give notice that it believes that the items are abandoned and that it would remove them within a reasonable period. The notice is commonly referred to as a ‘Tort’ notice. The landlord’s decision to send such notices was appropriate given that the tenancy agreement says that residents “must keep any communal areas … clear of obstruction. The landlord’s explanation to the resident was also reasonable.

Reports of pest infestations

The evidence suggests the landlord was aware of a vermin infestation in June 2024 when it undertook work to carry out a CCTV drainage survey. In its stage 1 complaint response, it said it had found no defects at that time. It added, given the time that had passed it had referred the matter back to its pest control team for further investigation. That was a reasonable step to take. We have seen no evidence the resident reported vermin prior to making the complaint.
In relation to the flea infestation, we have seen the landlord liaised with the local council about this matter and in January 2025 the council agreed to install monitoring stations. They said they would check them and let the landlord know if they found anything and advise on what course of action they recommended. It is not clear what the outcome of that monitoring was.
In relation to the pigeon infestation and the faeces around the block, the landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that it was aware of the problem and considering the options available to it. It is not clear if this matter has been resolved.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to write to the resident with an update on the reported vermin, flea and pigeon infestations and what action is being taken to eradicate them, if appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. the lack of communal storage.
2. fire safety.
3. about a notice regarding belongings left in communal arrears.
4. reports of pest infestations.
In accordance with para 42.1 of the Scheme, the resident’s complaints about the landlord not providing grounds maintenance and cleaning services is not within our jurisdiction.

Orders

The landlord must take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to us:
1. apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident the sum of £550 made up of:
  1. £450 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in carrying out the repair to the render and beading at the rear of the property.
  2. £50 for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to clean all areas of concern in the stairwell.
  3. £50 for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in responding to the concerns about the areas around the block.
3. reinspect the bedroom and window at the rear of the property and carry out appropriate repairs to reduce any problems with the cold and draught.
4. inspect the stairwell and, if appropriate, to arrange a deep clean of the area.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord takes the following action:
1. consider including specific timescales for repairs in its repair policy and/or website to help manage resident expectations and to avoid ambiguity.
2. shares with the resident a copy of the ‘safety in your home Information pack’ (this can also be found on its website). As well as a copy of its most recent fire risk assessment.
3. write to the resident with an update on the reported vermin, flea and pigeon infestations and what action is being taken to eradicate them, if appropriate.