We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202414527)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414527

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

6 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 reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. During the course of the complaint, the resident stated he was undergoing chemotherapy.
  2. The resident submitted his formal complaint on 6 May 2024. He said since moving into the property he had experienced black mould. He said despite bringing it to the landlord’s attention and expressing the urgency due to undergoing chemotherapy treatment, it remained unresolved. The resident said the mould had contributed to 3 bacterial chest infections which resulted in hospitalisation. He said the landlord installed fans but they just blew the mould around. He also raised additional issues with his property which included dysfunctional bathroom and kitchen windows, and his door being unsecure.
  3. The resident said he was demanding compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s negligence. He said he had been forced to seek alternative accommodation due the unliveable conditions of his home. He asked the landlord to prioritise the matter and provide a prompt resolution.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 June 2024. It expressed its well wishes as the resident had been in hospital in the past week. It said in a conversation dated 24 May 2024 the resident explained that the landlord had treated the damp and mould in the bathroom and hallway, but there was still a presence there. It said the resident had stated that he was unable to use the shower with his window open because of his health and due to the effect on his heating bills.
  5. The landlord outlined the actions taken since the initial report on 25 January 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said there was a failing in the way it handled his repair and he had made his health concerns clear when reporting the damp and mould. It explained there was an extreme backlog in its repairs as well as a staff shortage. It said it was liaising internally to get the damp and mould treated and once it had scheduled an appointment, it would update the resident. It said it would then schedule a further date to monitor the damp and mould. It said it had asked his housing officer to take pictures in the meantime. The landlord offered £100 in compensation.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 June 2024. He said the compensation was not a suitable offer given the service received and his situation. He said he was unable to stay in his home for at least a month as the repairs could not be carried out in that time. He said he would expect the landlord to refund his rent for the month as a minimum. The resident said despite the inspection stating that the mould should treated, the landlord had only scheduled the fans. He said it was not until he chased the mould treatment that he found that landlord had not made an appointment for it.
  7. On 19 June 2024 the resident said the landlord had booked an appointment to remove the remainder of the mould on 18 July 2024. He said as he had previously explained, his doctor said he could not be around the mould during his current treatment and it could be fatal. He said it had been around 3 months that he had not been able to stay in his flat and he expected the landlord to refund his rent up until the mould was eradicated. He said his doctors were happy to provide evidence if the landlord required it. He said he was willing to go to court although it would not be ideal for him as he was still undergoing chemotherapy and stem cell treatment.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 July 2024. It said it treated the damp and mould by way of a “fungi wash”. It said the resident admitted that he did not ventilate the property and showered with the bathroom window closed. It said taking into consideration his health concerns, his housing officer went to view and take pictures of the damp and mould he complained of. It said the visit could not take place as the resident was in hospital. It said it wished him well and was keen to inspect the damp and mould. It advised the resident to contact it to rearrange the appointment. It said it supported the findings in stage 1 response and offered £100 to compensate for the delays in the repairs.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the mould was not as bad but it was still there. He said the landlord should either move him or provide a permanent solution so the mould does not return. The resident said the landlord was lying about him not opening the windows. He said he uses an irrigation machine to go to the toilet but he could no longer use it in the bathroom as it filled with mould everyday. The resident felt the compensation was poor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts on the resident.
  2. In his stage 2 escalation and in communication to the Ombudsman the resident has stated that he would like to move. As this part of the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, we will be unable to consider it in this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint to his landlord if he wishes to pursue this.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. The landlord self referred itself to the Regulator following the request to report damp and mould hazards in its properties by 19 December 2022. The landlord stated that it would channel all new damp and mould enquiries through its dedicated damp team. It said this was to manage the situations and ensure it was dealing with the highest risk properties in a consistent manner. It said it had moved quickly to action early interventions to alleviate the immediate risks to health from damp and mould.
  3. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess or determine the extent of the damp and mould in the property. Rather, we would expect to see evidence of the landlord responding to the reports and concerns in line with its policies and obligations.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It says it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.

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

  1. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property. The reasons for this are provided below.
  2. The first record provided from the landlord in relation to the damp and mould is on 25 January 2024. It said the resident was requesting an afternoon slot for a visit as he had a GP appointment. He said the mould was affecting his health and he had been in hospital twice. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 26 January 2024 in the morning to complete a damp assessment and there was no-one at the property. It appears it then rearranged the appointment for 22 March 2024 but it also made an internal request to move the appointment forward.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider an earlier appointment given the concerns raised. However, as the landlord has not provided the records from when the resident initially reported damp and mould in the property, we cannot determine whether the overall time taken to inspect the property was reasonable. The landlord’s record keeping will be addressed later in the report.
  4. The landlord carried out its inspection on 14 February 2024. It has not provided the Ombudsman with the inspection report or findings from the visit. Although, there is a works order from that date to “wash down damp affected areas.” The resident said the landlord fitted extractor fans following the inspection and the landlord confirmed it carried out repairs to treat the damp and mould on 9 May 2024.
  5. Given the resident’s reported impact on his health, we would expect to see clear decision making regarding the risk to the resident. We would also expect to see records which outline the findings from the inspection. Installing fans and arranging treatment of the mould are reasonable initial steps to take in such cases. However, the landlord should have shown consideration to the cause of the issue and what specific action was required to resolve it.
  6. A risk assessment would have taken into account the known vulnerabilities. It could then have considered any other steps it could take such as priority repairs and support referrals. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord reasonably considered the risks to the resident.
  7. We also do not find it reasonable that it took 3 months for the landlord to carry out the mould treatment. This is particularly notable as the landlord was aware of the resident’s health conditions and the likely distress caused to him in residing in the property with damp and mould. This is also not in line with its commitments following its self-referral to the regulator to ensure it acts quickly to alleviate the immediate risks to health from damp and mould.
  8. In his formal complaint the resident stated that he could not live in his property and was staying with family. In its stage 1 response on 5 June 2024 the landlord said it was liaising internally to get the existing damp and mould treated. It said it would inform the resident of the date once it had been scheduled. It said it asked his housing officer to take photos in the interim so it could record the images. The appointment for the treatment was later scheduled for 18 July 2024.
  9. Prior to the stage 2 response and on 19 June 2024 the resident had raised concerns with the appointment provided for 18 July 2024. He said his doctor had said he could not be around the mould and it could be fatal. He said he could provide evidence from his doctors and said he had not been able to stay in the property. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this or considering an earlier appointment in light of the resident’s concerns, which is a failing.
  10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident said he was unable to use the shower with his window open and this was due to his health and the effect on his heating bills. It would have been reasonable following that report for the landlord to explore the reasons why it impacted his health and consider if there was any other action it could take to assist. Similarly, if the resident was reporting concerns about his energy bills, the landlord could have signposted him to relevant support organisations. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this.
  11. Additionally, its stage 2 response stated that the resident had admitted he did not ventilate the property and showered with the bathroom window closed. In the absence of any inspection reports, the cause of the reported damp and mould was not clear. While it is fair for the landlord to highlight any actions residents can take to assist with condensation issues, we would expect to see the findings of its investigations first and if the likely cause of the reported issue. In the absence of this, the landlord appeared to be apportioning blame on the resident.
  12. Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection and works to address the issue. But in the absence of the records from its visits, we cannot conclude that its actions were appropriate. Despite its admitted failings regarding its delays at stage 1, the landlord was not able to evidence that it used any tools or frameworks to assess the likely heightened risk to the resident. Its responses and compensation offer did not reflect the likely detriment caused to the resident as a result of its failings. The resident is continuing to report damp and mould and it remains unclear whether the landlord has done enough to address the issue.
  13. Due to the time which has passed and the above findings, an order will be made for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould inspection in the property. This will take into account the resident’s reported vulnerabilities and any potential risks to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

  1. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered. The reasons for this are outlined below.
  2. The landlord’s provided its stage 1 response 20 working days after the formal complaint, which was not in line with its policy. In its response it states that the resident made his complaint on 16 May 2024. It then said the resident’s housing officer escalated the resident’s email dated 6 May 2024 as a stage 1 complaint. It is unclear why the landlord said the resident made his complaint on 16 May 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident and to provide an explanation for it.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it defined the resident’s complaint as concerns that there was black mould present in the property. However, the formal complaint referred to numerous issues in the property. This included dysfunctional windows which he said made it constantly cold, issues with his toilet, boiler, and an insecure front door.
  4. A call had taken place with the resident on 24 May 2024 regarding his complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to document whether he still required a response to the additional issues and what action it had taken in relation to them. While the resident did not escalate them at stage 2 and as such, we could not investigate them, it was a failing that they appeared to go unaddressed in the stage 1 response.
  5. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor and hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation into the complaints. It is difficult to determine from the evidence provided whether the property was habitable for the resident and as stated previously we cannot make a determination on negligence. The landlord has suggested that the mould in the property was minimal. However, there is no contemporaneous evidence of this.
  6. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. We understand the landlord is working with the regulator to address its record keeping, therefore, we will not make a separate order in relation that. However, the landlord should reflect on the record keeping failings in this case and if it requires any further action to address this issue.
  7. The landlord does not have a compensation policy and therefore it is difficult to establish how it reached its compensation award of £100. Taking into account the failures identified in this report, £100 does not reflect the likely detriment caused to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award of £600 would appropriate. This is broken down as:
    1. £500 for the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  8. This takes into account that the landlord acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right. But it failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise for the additional failures identified in this case.
  2. The landlord must arrange for another damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. If the inspection finds that repairs are required in the property, the landlord must provide a schedule of works with defined timescales for it to complete the works. The findings must be shared with both the Ombudsman and the resident.
  3. The landlord should also conduct a risk assessment for the resident taking into account his vulnerabilities and any potential hazards in the property.
  4. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £600 in compensation. This includes the £100 offered by the landlord, if it has not already been paid to the resident.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reflect on its record keeping in this case and how it hindered this investigation. If it has not already done so, it should consider any changes it could make to improve its record keeping.