Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202307929)

Decision
Case ID	202307929
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	7 January 2026

Background

The resident reported damp and mould in the property. He complained to the landlord stating the damp and mould was recurring and it was affecting the family’s health. He also complained about antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident told the landlord he wanted to be rehoused.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of ASB.
3. Concerns about its communication relating to a request for a move.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about its communication relating to a request for a move.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
There was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:
1. responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, however, a lack of detailed records made it difficult to conclude if it acted in line with its obligations.
2. did not receive any reports of ASB to respond to within the scope of this investigation.
3. provided correct information and advice regarding the resident’s rehousing and banding and provided reasonable suggestions on how to seek quicker rehousing through alternative routes.
4. did not comply with its complaint policy. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this or offer reasonable redress.
5. provided limited or no information regarding inspections and repairs to the property which hindered our assessment.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 04 February 2026
3	Work order The landlord must share the most recent damp and mould inspection report with the resident and us. It must also give the resident timescales for completing any repair recommendations made in that inspection report. If the landlord cannot provide a copy of that report, it must engage a damp and mould specialist to carry out a new survey of the property. It must share that report with us and the resident. It must also give the resident timescales for completing any repair recommendations made in the new inspection report.	No later than 04 February 2026
4	Record keeping order The landlord should consider changing its system so it: no longer deletes cancelled repairs. (Relating to lack of an audit trail for those repairs or for investigation purposes). ensures the retaining of key repairs information such as inspection and survey reports is embedded in its repairs procedures.	No later than 04 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider contacting the resident to offer support and advice on how he could seek housing via the alternative routes suggested.
The landlord should provide the resident with information on how he can submit a claim for damage to personal belongings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: he had reported damp and mould since he moved into the property in 2020 and the landlord had been negligent in its duty to address the poor condition of the property. the housing officer had visited in March 2022 and confirmed the previous attempts to resolve the issue had not improved the situation. the only option was to be rehoused as the property was affecting the health and wellbeing of the family, and it was overcrowded.
27 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had conducted several inspections that all diagnosed the issue as condensation due to a lack of air flow. It had completed cleans and mould washes as necessary and replastered several walls. the resident cancelled several appointments as he did not believe the situation could be improved and did not want any more repairs carried out. the waiting lists for a move were lengthy, and it could not specify how long the resident could be waiting. It suggested other housing options for consideration. the resident’s previous requests for a medial priority were unsuccessful, but if circumstances changed, he could re-apply. it had received one ASB complaint in May 2022. It had contacted the resident and provided diary sheets, but it needed more information to progress the investigation. The resident did not want to progress the case further due to fear of repercussion.
11 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he said the damp and mould had not been resolved.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had investigated the damp and mould and implemented solutions that included installing monitoring equipment and ventilation. It had offered a further inspection, but the resident had declined the offer. it would inspect the property on 1 May 2024 and ask the housing officer to contact him about the concerns raised. it could not say how long the resident could be waiting for a move. It said it had considered a medical priority request, but the resident did not meet the threshold. the resident had provided videos of ASB, but he had been advised to report crimes to the police. It said it could lead on ASB complaints, but it needed evidence from the resident to conduct an investigation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us nothing had changed, and the damp and mould was still a problem. He wanted compensation for damage to belongings, and wanted to be moved.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Record keeping
Finding	Service failure

We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records which has impacted our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. This includes limited or no information regarding inspections and repairs as highlighted throughout this report.
We find service failure in the landlord’s record keeping. We have made an order for the landlord to consider changing its system, so it does not delete cancelled repairs. This would ensure a full audit trail of records is available for investigation purposes. We have also ordered the landlord to ensure key repair information such as inspection and survey reports are embedded in its repairs procedure.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The resident stated the damp and mould had been ongoing since 2020. This is not disputed, however, based on the evidence seen by us and the date the resident complained to the landlord in November 2023, this assessment will focus on events from November 2022 to 26 April 2024, the date of the final complaint response. There is evidence the resident complained in 2022, however this did not exhaust the landlord’s full complaint process, therefore we are unable to consider this as part of our investigation.
The landlord’s repair records confirm it raised repairs for damp and mould on the walls and ceilings in the bedroom in November and December 2022. The records state the repairs were completed but there are no additional notes or comments to confirm what the landlord found, or if any follow-on work was required. The lack of records makes it difficult for us to assess if the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately in responding to the damp and mould.
The resident reported damp and mould again on 7 February 2023. The landlord confirmed it had inspected the property the previous year and completed repairs. It raised a further inspection for 15 February 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report or findings, but the evidence confirms it raised a fungal wash to the lower walls and skirting. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy which states it will arrange an inspection to try and identify the source of the problem and take action to fix it. The records indicate 3 appointments were made, however it suggests there were access problems. Due to a lack of detailed records, it is not clear if these repairs were completed and if the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations.
The resident raised another repair some 7 months later, on 18 September 2023 for damp on the walls and ceilings and plaster cracks. The repair records state the repair was completed. There were no further notes or comments recorded, however on 9 October 2023, the resident told the landlord the mould kept coming back. The landlord arranged an inspection for 19 October 2023. This was reasonable, however there is evidence the resident cancelled this.
The resident complained to the landlord on or around 27 November 2023. He said the property condition was affecting the family’s health and previous attempts to resolve the issue, had not improved the situation. The landlord raised an inspection for 24 January 2024. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy, but the records suggest the inspection was cancelled and rebooked. The landlord does not indicate if it arranged a new date, if this went ahead, or what it found. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if the landlord took appropriate steps to identify the root cause of the damp and mould. There is no evidence of any follow up work being raised.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It stated the resident had cancelled several appointments as he believed the situation could be not improved and he said he should be moved. The landlord advised the resident it was trying to help resolve the problem and confirmed several inspectors had visited the property, all of whom confirmed the issue was condensation due to a lack of air flow. It confirmed it had completed fungal washes and replastered several walls to help resolve the problem.
In its final complaint response on 26 April 2024 the landlord confirmed the solutions it had already implemented after its investigations. It arranged a further inspection for 1 May 2024. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment to investigate the damp and mould for the resident.
The landlord completed the inspection as proposed and wrote to the resident with its findings. The landlord confirmed it had made several recommendations after its inspection in May 2023. We have not seen evidence of this, but the landlord said these included moving furniture away from walls and installing a hangable damp trap to help minimise the humidity in the wardrobe. The landlord confirmed it fitted smart tags to monitor humidity levels and installed air bricks throughout the property.
During the inspection on 1 May 2024, the landlord found some of the airbricks had been covered which it said would counteract the purpose of them being installed. It said the cupboards were still full, including mouldy items which it explained contributed to the ongoing mould. It confirmed the moisture readings showed the walls were dry and there was no risk of condensation from the external walls. It made recommendations on the paint that should be used when decorating and made several other recommendations to help eliminate the mould in the property.
In addition to the recommendations, the landlord arranged for further repairs to be completed. This included reboarding the wall in the living room, replacing the kitchen fan which it found was not being used, and servicing the bathroom fan. It advised the resident if he was unwilling to take the advice given, it was likely the mould would continue to return. The landlord’s response and communication to the resident was reasonable and the actions taken were appropriate to help resolve the issue reported.
In summary we find service failure. There is evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and attempted to resolve the problem for the resident on several occasions including several inspections and repairs. However, as set out above, the lack of detailed records provided by the landlord has made it difficult to reach a firm conclusion that the landlord acted appropriately in line with its obligations and that it kept the resident updated throughout. We note that, while the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his damp and mould reports, there is no evidence to suggest he disputes the information given in the landlord’s complaint responses.
As the landlord has not provided us with any damp and mould survey, we have made an order for the landlord to share the most recent damp and mould inspection report with the resident and us. It must also give the resident timescales for completing any repair recommendations made in that inspection report.
If the landlord cannot provide a copy of that report, it must engage a damp and mould specialist to carry out a new survey of the property. It must share that report with us and the resident. It must also give the resident timescales for completing any repair recommendations made in the new inspection report.

Complaint	Reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

The evidence confirms the resident reported ASB to the landlord in May 2022. On 8 May 2022, he told the landlord that almost daily, people were standing outside the flat taking drugs and were being very loud, fighting and shouting. He said the smell of drugs was in his flat and it was affecting the family’s health. He asked the landlord to find a better place for them to live.
The landlord:

visited the flat on 10 May 2022 when it noted no drug-related odours.
contacted the resident on 11 May and 12 May 2022. It interviewed him and tried to obtain further details regarding the alleged perpetrators but noted the resident was not willing to provide this information due to fear of repercussions.
offered to write to all residents in the block regarding the alleged drug use and advise this was a breach of tenancy, but it noted the resident declined this offer.
completed a risk assessment, agreed a communication and investigation plan and provided the resident with diary sheets to capture future incidents. It advised that without sufficient evidence, it would be limited in the action it could take.
contacted the resident to collect the completed diary sheets and asked him for more detail to allow it to investigate further.

The landlord took appropriate steps and gave advice to the resident at the time. The landlord’s actions were in line with its ASB policy which states it will complete a risk assessment, agree a communication and investigation plan and investigate reported incidents based on evidence. The case did not progress as there was a lack of evidence, and the resident did not want to progress it further.
There is no evidence the resident reported any further incidents of ASB up to the date of the final complaint response. There is therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.

Complaint	Concerns about its communication relating to a request for a move
Finding	No maladministration

The resident asked for a move to a more suitable property as a resolution to his complaint. As we have explained to the resident, this is not something we can order the landlord to do. This is because this would be subject to assessed bedroom requirements for the household, the availability of properties, and the priority of other applicants.
The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 about his rehousing request and his banding. The landlord confirmed he had been assessed as band 3 due to overcrowding, and when asked how long it would take to find a property, it advised it could take a long time due to the number of applicants on the waiting list. The landlord advised the resident to widen his choice of area and to seek housing via other means such as a housing association or the private rented sector as this may be a quicker alternative. The landlord’s advice and suggestions were reasonable.
The resident raised this issue in his complaint. The landlord confirmed the previous information and advice given. It highlighted the demand on housing by confirming the number of bids made by the resident, and his highest position reached. It confirmed again it could not put a timeframe on how long he might have to wait.
The landlord confirmed the resident’s 2 previous requests for a medical priority had been unsuccessful, despite them going to appeal. It told the resident to re-apply if circumstances changed, or the medical conditions worsened. It advised a medical priority would only be awarded if the current property was detrimental to the health of him or his family. The landlord said if the resident were to bid on properties advertised as ‘children in flats,’ his bid and those applicants in the same category would be considered before other priority types. The landlord’s advice was clear, reasonable, and set his expectations.
The resident escalated his complaint. The landlord repeated the above advice and information in its final complaint response. It confirmed the resident did not meet the threshold for a medical priority based on the medical information he’d supplied. The landlord’s advice was reasonable, but it may have been helpful to provide more detail on when a medical priority may be considered in line with its allocations policy. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. This was a minor shortcoming of the landlord.
In summary, there was no maladministration. The landlord confirmed the resident’s banding for rehousing and advised him to make a new request for a medical priority if the family circumstances changed. It offered reasonable advice, information, and suggestions for securing alternative housing. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to support and advise the resident on what he needs to do to seek rehousing through the alternative routes suggested.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained via email to the landlord on or around 27 November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord logged this complaint at the time. The landlord’s complaint policy states a complaint is “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.” The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s complaint, nor did it conduct an investigation. This was not appropriate as it did not comply with its complaint policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to confirm how it would action the email received. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure.
The resident contacted us in February 2024 for support in progressing his complaint. On 18 March 2024 we asked the landlord to log the complaint and respond by 10 April 2024. The landlord confirmed it had raised the complaint on 19 March 2024, however there is no evidence it acknowledged this with the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which states it would acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 March 2024. This was appropriate as it was within the timeframe requested. The landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident however it did not highlight or apologise for not logging the complaint when it was initially raised. The landlord did not offer any redress for the distress and inconvenience. This was not reasonable.
The resident escalated his complaint on 11 April 2024 however there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged it. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 April 2024, 11 working days later. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which states it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged the initial response lacked a detailed solution. It addressed the issues raised by the resident and confirmed the steps it would take to try and resolve these. It did however miss a further opportunity to address its failure in logging the complaint when it was initially raised. This meant it also failed to identify any learning, offer an apology, or any redress to try and put it right.
In summary, we find maladministration. While there was no permanent impact on the resident, the landlord failed to log the complaint when the resident submitted it, and it took our involvement to progress the complaint. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed him progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also likely made him feel frustrated and that he was not being taken seriously. Further, it would have prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to us sooner for an independent investigation. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or offer redress at any stage of the complaint process and did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of the failures identified in this report.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This sum reflects the likely frustration and inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident regarding its approach to responding to his initial complaint.