Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202345539)

Decision
Case ID	202345539
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a 1-bedroom low rise flat between 11 July 2016 and 13 April 2025. He reported rainwater leaking through the roof and into his bedroom. He also reported associated damage to his bedroom ceiling and damp and mould. These issues were ongoing from October 2022 until he left the property in April 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a roof leak.
   2. Reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. Associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. Reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a roof leak.

4. The landlord delayed inspecting and repairing the leak. It did not complete lasting or effective repairs. It also did not provide any updates to the resident.

Reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling.

5. The landlord delayed raising repair work for the damaged ceiling on 3 separate occasions. It also did not respond to some of the resident’s correspondence about the issue.

Reports of damp and mould.

6. The landlord delayed completing repairs to the damp and mould. Its records also provide no information about what measures it took to repair the damp and mould.

The associated complaint.

7. The landlord delayed issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It also did not respond to all complaint issues or offer any redress.

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 22 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,350 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of a leak. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of damage to the ceiling. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of damp and mould. £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 22 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
October 2022 to February 2024	The resident reported to the landlord water was leaking from the roof. He said water was dripping though his bedroom ceiling and there was damp and mould.
28 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the leaking roof. He said rainwater had been coming through the roof and into his bedroom for over a year. He had reported it several times and instead of fixing the problem, it had gotten worse. He bought plaster and paint himself to try to patch up the ceiling. He asked for a surveyor to assess the roof.
3 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it first identified the leak was coming from the chimney in November 2022. It said it carried out repair work in February 2023 and January and February 2024. A contractor attended on 30 May 2024 and could not find any signs of a leak. It apologised for the delays with repairs. It said it would arrange a damp and mould inspection.
8 July 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said the roof was still leaking and was worse during heavy rain. He had also not received any contact for a damp and mould inspection.
24 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said the damp and mould inspection was booked for 6 September 2024. It again apologised for the delays with repairs. It also apologised for delays in its complaint handling.
Events since the final complaint response	The resident left the property on 13 April 2025. He told us the leak and other repair issues were still ongoing at the time he left.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us as he wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience. He also wanted compensation for the internal repairs he carried out. He also wanted a refund of rent for the time living with the leak.

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	Reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

8. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it will respond to urgent repairs within 3 working days. It will respond to all non-urgent repairs within 25 working days. It classifies large non-urgent repairs as priority planned and does not specify a timescale. According to its repairs policy, it classifies a leaking roof as an urgent repair. The landlord should therefore respond within 3 working days.
9. The resident reported a leak from the roof on 28 October 2022. He said it was leaking through the bedroom ceiling. The landlord raised a job to inspect the roof. It should have attended by 2 November 2022 as an urgent repair, but it did not. This is a failure.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2022 to chase up the repair. It raised a new job and attended the next day. It then completed a temporary repair to contain the leak. This was a positive step. The original job from 28 October 2022 remained open for a roofing contractor to complete an inspection.
11. Following the resident chasing the landlord again on 4 and 7 November 2022, its roofing contractor attended on 11 November 2022. This was 10 working days from the resident’s initial report. It reported the roof was ok, but the chimney was leaking and bricklayers were needed with scaffolding. This shows the temporary repair was ineffective.
12. On 15 November 2022 the landlord raised a job to repair the chimney. As it required scaffolding to complete this work, it classed it as a large non-urgent planned repair. This had no timescale. However, it is required to complete repairs in a reasonable time under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. What is considered a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of the case.
13. The resident chased up the repair on 23 November 2022 and 13 January 2023. There is no evidence the landlord provided any updates. It completed the repair to the chimney on 16 February 2023. This was 16 weeks after the resident first reported the leak. This was not within a reasonable time. The water was leaking through his bedroom ceiling into his bedroom, causing distress and inconvenience.
14. The resident reported the leak had reoccurred on 15 August 2023. The landlord had not made an effective and lasting repair. This is inappropriate.
15. The landlord should have attended within 3 working days, but it attended 5 working days later. This is a failure. When it attended on 22 August 2023 it completed a temporary repair. It then raised a further job requiring scaffolding as a large non-urgent priority planned repair.
16. The resident chased up the repair on 13 October and 1 November 2023, and 2 January 2024. There is no evidence the landlord provided any updates without the resident having to chase matters. It completed the repair to the main roof on 9 January 2024. This was 21 weeks after the resident reported the leak again in August 2023. This was again not within a reasonable time considering all the circumstances of the case.
17. The resident reported on 23 January 2024 that the repairs had no impact. The water was still leaking into his bedroom through the ceiling and was getting worse. The landlord should have attended within 3 working days. However, there is no evidence it had completed any temporary repairs to try to mitigate the effects. He chased the repairs again on 21 and 28 February 2024. The landlord erected scaffolding on 28 February 2024 and completed repairs. The delay to take any action or provide any updates was inappropriate.
18. The landlord attended again on 30 May 2024 and reported it could not find any recent sign of water damage. In its stage 1 complaint response it confirmed that information and was satisfied the leak was resolved.
19. On 14 June 2024 the resident reported, after heavy rain the previous night, the leak was back. He said all previous attempts to repair the leak had failed. The landlord raised a further job to repair the roof on 1 July 2024. It is unclear why it delayed raising the repair. It was a failure it did not attend within 3 working days to complete temporary repairs. There is no evidence it completed this repair job, which is a further failure. It also did not respond to the resident’s correspondence, which is inappropriate.
20. In its stage 2 complaint response of 24 July 2024, the landlord incorrectly stated it had completed repairs that morning. This was due to miscommunication between the landlord and its contractors. The information in an internal email was referring to it attending in the morning of 30 May 2024. But it misinterpreted the email to mean it had attended on the morning of 24 July 2024. This demonstrates poor communication and record keeping.
21. Although the landlord acknowledged delays completing repairs, it offered no redress for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. This was not appropriate. The resident had to live with water leaking into his bedroom intermittently for 21 months at that time.
22. Since the stage 2 complaint response, the resident has told us the leak continued intermittently until he left the property on 13 April 2025. The landlord’s inability to complete a full, effective and lasting repair is a failure.
23. In summary, there were delays at each stage of the repair process. The landlord failed to initially respond within 3 working days of the first report. It then took 16 weeks to complete the first repair. It failed to initially respond within 3 working days of the second report. It then took a further 21 weeks before completing repair work. It also delayed taking action following the third report of a leak. It did not complete lasting repairs to resolve the issue. There was poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. There was also poor communication by not providing any updates about repair works to the resident and most of his correspondence went unanswered.
24. In addition, it is not clear why after failed repairs the landlord did not carry out an extensive survey. This would have allowed it to get to the route of the problem with the roof. It also did not carry out a review as to why the repairs were not lasting.
25. As a result of its failure to repair the leak over a prolonged and sustained period, we have found maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation. This is to recognise the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle the resident’s report of a roof leak. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	Reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling.
Finding	Maladministration

26. The resident first reported water damaging the bedroom ceiling on 28 October 2022. The repairs to the bedroom ceiling were reliant on the landlord completing the roof repairs first. It did not identify if any temporary repairs might be necessary. This is a failure.
27. The resident continued to report damage to the bedroom ceiling on 11 occasions between 2 November 2022 and 28 February 2024. When the landlord completed the repair to the chimney on 16 February 2023, it should have then completed repairs to the ceiling within a reasonable time. There is no evidence the landlord raised a repair job to inspect or repair the bedroom ceiling at that time. This is a failure.
28. When the landlord completed the repair to the main roof on 9 January 2024, it should have completed repairs to the ceiling within a reasonable time. There is no evidence the landlord raised a repair job to inspect or repair the bedroom ceiling at that time. This is a failure.
29. The landlord completed further roof repairs on 28 February 2024. It did not raise a repair job to inspect or repair the bedroom ceiling following this. This is a failure.
30. It was right that the landlord did not complete plaster repairs until it completed the roof repair. The water from the leak was damaging the ceiling and would only have damaged any repair works. However, on each occasion the landlord was satisfied it had completed repairs to the leaking roof, it took no steps to repair the damaged ceiling. It also should have communicated its intentions to the resident. The landlord did not respond to some of the resident’s correspondence about the issue, including in its complaint responses. This is a failure.
31. In summary, the landlord delayed repairing the ceiling by 6 months from when it first completed roof repairs on 16 February 2023, until the resident reported a further leak on 15 August 2023. It also further delayed raising ceiling repairs following its further roof repairs of 9 January and 28 February 2024. The first evidence of the landlord raising a job to repair the plasterboard on the bedroom ceiling was on 6 September 2024. This is not a reasonable time under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The delays were therefore a failure.
32. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is to recognise the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle the resident’s reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

33. At the time of the issues and during the complaint period, the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in operation. However, we expect landlords to handle reports of damp and mould appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time. It should also provide regular communication and updates to the resident about the works.
34. Following the resident reporting damp and mould on 28 October 2022 the landlord attended 2 working days later. This was within a reasonable time. However, there is no record of what repair the landlord completed. Its repair log just shows it attended for damp and mould on that date.
35. Our Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
36. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property. They enable it to monitor and manage outstanding repairs. It also enables it to provide accurate information to residents. That we cannot clearly understand from the records the outcome of the inspection and whether works were completed is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
37. There is no evidence of the landlord raising any other repair jobs for damp and mould until its stage 1 complaint response of 3 June 2024. It said it would arrange a damp and mould inspection. It did not raise the inspection until 17 July 2024. This delay was a failure.
38. It did not complete the inspection until 6 September 2024. This was over 3 months after the landlord promised to inspect the damp and mould in its stage 1 complaint response. This delay was a further failure. Following the inspection, the landlord attended on 26 September 2024. It completed a mould wash and some decorating.
39. In summary, the landlord’s records provide no information about what measures it took to address the damp and mould. It also delayed raising a job as promised in its stage 1 complaint response. Once it raised the job, it significantly delayed completing the inspection.
40. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is to recognise the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The associated complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

41. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out clear expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. At stage 1 of its complaints process, landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should issue a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 of its complaints process, landlords must acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It should issue a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code.
42. In this case, the resident submitted a complaint on 28 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day. This is compliant with the Code and its own complaint policy.
43. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 3 June 2024. This was 64 working days after the complaint was submitted and is a failure. It also did not offer any redress to acknowledge the delays issuing its complaint response, which is a further failure.
44. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address all aspects of the complaint. The Code states that landlords are expected to respond to all aspects of the complaint as defined by the resident. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about damage to the bedroom ceiling. This omission was inappropriate and is a failure of the dispute resolution principles to be fair, learn and put things right.
45. Following the resident’s escalation request of 8 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged it the next day. This is compliant with the Code and its own complaint policy.
46. The landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response 11 working days later. This is compliant with the Code and its own complaint policy. However, it again did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to the bedroom ceiling. Although it apologised for delays in its complaint handling, it again offered no redress which is not reasonable.
47. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was not compliant with the Code or its own policy at stage 1 of the complaint process. It significantly delayed responding at stage 1 by 54 working days. It did not offer any redress to acknowledge the delays. It also did not address all aspects of the complaint.
48. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of its poor complaint handling, and the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Learning

49. There were repeated attempts at repairing the roof leak. None of the repairs were lasting or effective. The landlord should review its procedures and working practices to enable it to meet its repair obligations along with its contractors.
50. The landlord significantly delayed its stage 1 response. It also did not address all aspects of the complaint. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of responding within the prescribed timescales and addressing all issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

51. The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repair records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

52. The landlord has provided no evidence of sending the resident any updates or correspondence about repair jobs it raised. There were also several instances where the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s contact. The landlord should explore ways to maintain consistent contact with residents while repairs are ongoing.