Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202437379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437379

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s rehousing application.
2. Reports of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroomed first floor flat. The resident lives in the property with their partner and 3 young children.
The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on or around 1 January 2024. The landlord attended and fitted a temporary light while it undertook the repairs to the roof.
The resident contacted their local MP on 1 November 2024. They said their family were struggling with their health because of black mould all over the ceilings, windows, and down the side of furniture in every room. They said the roof still leaked when it rained and they also had a leak underneath the bath, which they believed was the cause of silverfish in the bathroom.
Following contact with the local MP, the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 18 November 2024. The landlord raised repairs to address the leaks to the roof and bathroom, install trickle vents on the windows, install a fan in the kitchen and to carry out a mould wash.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 2 January 2025. They said the roof had been leaking into the kitchen since 1 January 2024. They said it had been 2 months since the property inspection and the mould had spread. They said the landlord had told them, that even if it carried out work to the property, they would still get mould as they were overcrowded. The resident said they felt neglected by the landlord as it had not returned their calls. They said they were worried about their family due to the health concerns associated with living in damp and mouldy conditions.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 6 February 2025. It apologised for the distress and frustration felt by the resident. It said it had raised a job to thermally board the external walls and its contractors would contact the resident to plan the works. It confirmed it would not move the resident into temporary accommodation while the work was carried out.
The landlord said it had identified outstanding works during the inspection visit and it would give the resident an updated schedule of works no later than 10 February 2025. The landlord apologised for the level of service provided and it offered the resident £100 compensation.
Following escalation to stage 2 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 27 March 2025. It said there was a damp problem in the resident’s property. However, it was not sufficient to warrant anything other than its usual corrective works and procedures. The landlord said the work would be disruptive, but the resident would not need a temporary move, as the work would take no longer than 3 days. It did say, if the resident thought the property would be unliveable during the works, it would consider a short period in a hotel.
The landlord signposted the resident to its online compensation form to claim for personal property damaged by the damp and mould. However, it said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred their complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said they wanted the landlord to resolve the damp and mould issues and move the family to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) governs the complaints we can consider. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint, or part of a complaint.
Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s handling of their rehousing application based on medical grounds and overcrowding. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that this sits outside of our jurisdiction. This is because complaints about the assessment of housing applications, and the award of points or banding would be for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to determine.

Scope of investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on their, and their family’s, health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs

The landlord does not have a separate damp and mould policy. It manages reports of damp and mould through its repairs and maintenance policy and it uses its standard repairs timeframes when allocating the work. It does not specify a particular timeframe for reports of damp and mould.
The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on or around 1 January 2024. The landlord attended and fitted a temporary light in the resident’s kitchen. The landlord’s records show it raised a further repair on 1 February 2024. However, the job was closed due to “no access”. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord made any further attempts to access the property and fix the roof, or whether it had closed the job. It is also unclear from the evidence whether the resident contacted the landlord to rearrange the appointment.
The resident contacted their MP on 1 November 2024. They said their family were struggling with their health because of the black mould on their ceilings and windows, and mould down the sides of furniture in every room of their home. The resident said they were doing their best to clean the mould off, but it kept coming back. They said they still had an ongoing leak through the kitchen ceiling when it rained. They said the landlord fitted a temporary light in January 2024, but it only tried to inspect the leak on one further occasion. The resident said they also had a leak under the bath, which they thought was causing silverfish in the bathroom, and throughout the flat. The resident asked for help as they said the mould had damaged personal possessions, and the situation was causing the family a lot of stress.
It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence when the mould first became apparent within the resident’s home and whether the resident reported the mould to the landlord before contacting the MP.
It is also unclear from the evidence provided exactly when the MP first contacted the landlord following the resident’s enquiry, but it appears to be around 5 November 2024. The evidence shows the landlord initially made an appointment to attend to the damp, mould, and leaks on 24 December 2024. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says roof repairs are classed as urgent repairs. The appointment was 7 weeks from the date of the report and significantly outside of the timeframe of 3 working days set within the landlord’s policy for urgent repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 November 2024 to ask whether it could bring the job forward due to the amount of mould in the property and concerns about the family’s health. The landlord brought the job forward to 12 November 2024. While it was appropriate that the landlord did this, the appointment was still outside of the 3 working day target. It was also unreasonable that the resident had to ask for the appointment to be brought forward given the circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows the status of the 12 November 2024 job as “pass back”. It is therefore unclear from the landlord’s records whether it attended the resident’s property on that date, and if it did, what actions it took.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 18 November 2024. It has not provided a copy of the inspection report. However, the evidence shows it raised follow on repairs to address the leaks to the kitchen roof and bathroom, install trickle vents to the windows, install a fan in the kitchen, and to carry out a mould wash of the affected areas.
The records show the landlord also said it could thermally board the external bedroom walls. Although it is unclear from the evidence whether this course of action was agreed at the time of the inspection. The evidence shows there was a discussion about whether the landlord would agree to move the resident and family into temporary accommodation while it undertook the boarding work. It is unclear from the evidence what the landlord offered the resident, whether this was a firm offer, or whether it told the resident that a temporary move had to be approved by someone else.
This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. We would expect a landlord to have robust inspection and repair records, as this allows it to track what actions it has taken, what remains outstanding, and any agreements made with residents. This is especially the case when investigating and diagnosing the root cause of persistent damp and mould. Detailed records also allow the landlord to provide answers when its actions are called into question. In this case, the lack of available records has affected our investigation as we are unable to draw conclusions on the outcome of the inspection and whether the landlord’s follow up actions were appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2024 as she had received a text message about a repair that was due to take place that day. The resident said the landlord had not given them any prior notice of the appointment and they were not at home. The landlord said the operative was already on site, so the job would be carded as “no access”. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence whether it rebooked the job with the resident during the call, which would have been a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 24 November 2024. They said they could not sleep because of the smell of mould in their home. They said the inspection surveyor had told them no matter what work was done, the mould would come back as the property was too small for the family. The resident said the surveyor told them they would benefit from moving to a more suitable property and he would see if he could assist with a priority move. The resident stressed in the email that the children had coughs and they had recently replaced the mattresses due to mould damage.
We have no record of what the surveyor told the resident during the inspection and so we are unable to determine whether the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations of moving to an alternative property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 separate occasions between 3 December 2024 and 9 December 2024 asking for an update. The landlord called the resident on 10 December 2024. It confirmed it had booked the agreed work in for 7 January 2025 and 20 January 2025. It also told the resident it was unable to agree to move the family into temporary accommodation as the surveyor did not think it was necessary. It suggested the resident raise a formal complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 January 2025. They said:
1. the roof had been leaking into the kitchen since 1 January 2024 and the landlord had not fixed it
2. it had been 2 months since the property inspection but the landlord had not done any of the outstanding work. The mould had spread, and when they reported this, the landlord just told them to clean it off
3. the landlord said there was too much work to do while the resident was in the property, so they would need to move into temporary accommodation. Yet the landlord said they would still have problems with mould as the property was too small
4. they felt neglected by the landlord as they had tried to get in contact with their housing officer, but she did not return calls. They said they were worried about their family’s health due to the health concerns associated with living in damp and mouldy conditions.
The landlord’s records show it chased its roofing contractors on or around 9 January 2025 as the job had been with them since October 2024. The landlord noted its concerns that the roof leak was one of the main causes of the damp and mould.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended the resident’s home on 17 January 2025. The resident said the operative found the leak and said he would repair it, but instead, he just left the property. This was unreasonable considering the operative did not let the resident know he was leaving or say when, or if, he would return.
The records show the landlord visited the property on 20 January 2025. However, the only information provided by the landlord is a note to confirm that an urgent mould wash was required to the affected areas in both bedrooms. It has not provided any further details of the visit, including what it discussed or agreed with the resident. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices.
The landlord’s internal records dated 21 January 2025 show that the repairs raised following the inspection on 18 November 2024 were still outstanding. The records show the installation of the kitchen fan and trickle vents were not on the repairs system. The roof repairs were still outstanding and the work to address the bathroom leak was booked in for 28 January 2025. (Although this contradicts the information given to us by the landlord more recently that it completed the bathroom repairs on 20 January 2025).
This was not appropriate. It was over 2 months since the date of the inspection. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence what priority it had given to each repair. However, this was significantly outside of the timeframe of 3 working days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for medium priority urgent repairs. It was also outside of the timeframe of 25 working days for low priority non-urgent repairs.
The internal records also show that the surveyor said he would raise a job for the external bedroom walls to be thermally boarded. However, the records show he did not think it would solve the damp and mould problem because the problem was “basically overcrowding and lifestyle although we are not allowed to state the facts”. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and likely affected the landlord’s overall management of the damp and mould.
It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence how the surveyor had come to this conclusion considering there was an active roof leak and an active bathroom leak. The landlord had already said on 9 January 2025 that it thought the roof leak was one of the main causes of the mould. The additional moisture caused by both leaks would likely create an ideal environment for mould spores to thrive and multiply. In addition, there is no evidence to show the resident had reported significant damp and mould prior to the roof leak.
The landlord completed the mould wash to the bedrooms on 24 January 2025 and it repaired the roof on 28 January 2025.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 6 February 2025. It apologised for the distress and frustration felt by the resident. It said the resident reported damp and mould on 5 November 2024 and it inspected the property on 18 November 2024. It said it found minimal traces of damp and mould. It said it had raised a job to thermal board the external walls and its contractors would contact the resident to plan the works. It confirmed it had decided not to move the resident into temporary accommodation while the work was carried out.
The landlord said it had identified outstanding works during the inspection visit. It confirmed that these were works to resolve damp and mould, fix the roof and temporary kitchen light, fix the bathroom leak, and the installation of a kitchen fan and trickle vents. The landlord said it would give the resident an updated schedule of works no later than 10 February 2025. The landlord apologised for the level of service provided. It said it recognised the delays and that work was still outstanding and it offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 February 2025. The resident referred to the surveyor’s comment that the work would not resolve the damp and mould because the mould was due to overcrowding. The resident said they wanted the landlord to move them into another property while it completed the work to the external walls. They said the housing officer had told them, if they liked the temporary property, they could stay in it.
The landlord visited the resident on 24 March 2025 to complete a further inspection. The landlord’s records show the resident refused access. It should be noted that the resident disputes this. The resident told us they did not refuse access for an inspection. They said the surveyor said he had only come to measure for the thermal boarding, and not to inspect the property. However, he did not measure up as the resident said the work would cause too much disruption while the family were living in the property.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2025. It acknowledged that there was a damp problem in the resident’s property. However, it said its surveyor confirmed the level of damp and mould was not sufficient to warrant anything other than its usual corrective works and procedures. This included thermal boarding and mould washing. The landlord said the work would be disruptive, but not so disruptive that the resident would need a temporary move, as the work would take no longer than 3 days. Although it did say, if the resident thought the property would be unliveable during the works, it would consider a short period in a hotel.
The landlord said it wanted to see whether the damp and mould had spread, so it arranged a further inspection on 24 March 2025. However, the resident refused access. The landlord said this would delay its efforts to address the problem and it asked them to arrange a further inspection appointment. The landlord signposted the resident to its online compensation form to claim for personal property damaged by the damp and mould. It confirmed it had booked the work to the trickle vents in for 3 April 2025 and it apologised for any delays and distress the resident may have experienced. However, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord did appropriately apologise to the resident for the delays and distress caused and said it would consider a temporary stay in a hotel while it carried out the thermal boarding work. However, it did not fully recognise the length of time the issue had been ongoing or the detriment caused to the resident and their family. The landlord also unfairly placed an element of blame on the resident for the delays due to the failed appointment on 24 March 2025, even though this had caused very recent and minimal delays at this point. It did not address the confusion around the surveyor’s comments that the mould would continue regardless of any work undertaken due to overcrowding. It also did not consider awarding additional compensation based on the continuing delays and detriment to the resident and their family.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that there were some failings in the way it handled the repairs, damp and mould, it has not shown it has recognised all the failings, as set out above. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and on that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. Therefore, we consider the offer of £100 at stage 1 insufficient to reflect the resident’s circumstances and the effect of the landlord’s failings.
We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer of £100) to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord made an offer of compensation which is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have also made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident in the circumstances and further orders in relation to the resolution of the damp and mould.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 2 January 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 6 February 2025. This was over a month from the date of acknowledgement and outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay within the stage 1 response.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 7 February 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 27 March 2025. This was almost 2 months from the date of escalation and outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not acknowledge the further delay within the stage 2 response.
This was not appropriate. The delays caused the resident avoidable time and trouble and delayed her from escalating her complaint to us. As such, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to service failure.
To put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £100 for the failings in its complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided which it did not appropriately acknowledge. An order to this effect has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of their rehousing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £600 (the landlord may deduct from this amount any compensation payment it has already made) made up of:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. Arrange for an appropriately qualified surveyor to carry out a full damp and mould survey of the property.
5. Within 2 weeks of the survey the landlord must:
  1. Provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
  2. The report must include details of the likely cause of any unresolved damp and mould, and any necessary works to resolve the issues.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of the surveyor’s report the landlord must begin any identified works. If it is unable to meet this deadline the landlord must notify both the resident and us, providing a clear explanation for the delay.
  4. Consider whether a temporary move is needed for the resident and their family while any identified work is carried out. The decision must be based on the landlord’s decant policy.