Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202531728)

Decision
Case ID	202531728
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported an electrical outage in December 2024. He complained that the landlord failed to complete necessary repairs, leaving part of his home without working electrics. He was also unhappy that it had stated it would recharge him for repair work for unauthorised alterations.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of electrical issues.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of electrical issues.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of electrical issues

4. We found failures by the landlord in its record keeping, communication, and escalation of access issues.

The complaint

5. There were delays at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, which it failed to offer any redress for or demonstrate learning.

 

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation. This is comprised of: £150 recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by poor communication and a missed repair appointment £50 for the complaint handling delays The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 April 2026
3	Action plan The landlord must produce a written action plan detailing the steps it will take to complete electrical investigations and required remedial works. This must include timescales, necessary access requirements, the cost of lifting flooring, and the process it will take if access is denied. It must provide a copy to both the resident and us by the due date.	No later than 17 April 2026
4	Clarification order After the landlord has lifted the flooring and inspected the electrics, it must clarify its position in writing to the resident concerning any recharges. This must include a breakdown of costs, if applicable.	No later than 1 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord develops a clear escalation process for cases where access is denied and potentially safety critical repairs are not progressing.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 June 2025	The resident complained that the living room sockets had no power since December 2024 and had not been repaired. He said to run appliances like the TV, he used extension leads from the kitchen and hallway. He felt this was inconvenient and potentially unsafe. He asked the landlord for compensation for the repair delay. He also wanted it to confirm that it would take responsibility for any damage to the flooring during repair work.
30 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
5 August 2025	The resident raised a follow‑on complaint after a missed repair appointment on 2 July 2025. He said another appointment occurred on 15 July 2025. He was unhappy that the landlord was holding him responsible for the repairs due to alterations he had made within his home. In response, he said: the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) of 2021 showed an outdated system the tenancy did not require permission for electrical work he felt the landlord was unfairly threatening an unjustified charge
19 August 2025	The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as he had not received a stage 1 response.
16 September 2025	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the resident had made multiple unauthorised alterations within the property. It agreed to cover the cost of replacing the fuse board but said he must pay for the lifting of unauthorised downstairs flooring before further electrical works could proceed. It said the case was on hold pending his reply. It added that the 2021 EICR showed the electrics were compliant at the time but had since been altered without consent. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
16 September 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. He said the root cause of the issue was the landlord’s failure to maintain an aging electrical system. He was unhappy that it sent him a recharge form to sign.
21 October 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident advising of a 10-day complaint extension.
3 November 2025	In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for delays. It said its inspection was limited because the resident refused to lift the laminate flooring he installed without permission. It stated his electrical works did not meet regulations. It said it found multiple hazards during its visit, which its electrician and supervising engineer isolated for safety.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to us. As of March 2026, he confirmed part of his home was still without power. He wants the landlord to remedy the electrical issues without recharging for the works and to compensate him for the inconvenience.

 

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	The landlord’s handling of reports of electrical issues
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

6. Within the resident’s complaint to us, he asked us to investigate the landlord’s failure to act upon the recommendations set out in the 2021 EICR. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. We have seen no evidence that he complained about this in 2021, or within 12 months of the report. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on the complaint made in June 2025 and the landlord’s complaint responses.

What we have considered

7. The resident reported electrical faults on 30 December 2024. The landlord recorded that an engineer attended that day but could not gain access. An electrician subsequently attended the following day. They marked the work order as complete, with a note suggesting it sent an email to a staff member. It is not clear what this email related to, and it has not provided a copy to us. The absence of written evidence is a shortcoming in its record keeping.
8. The landlord raised a work order for an electrical inspection after identifying possible “DIY works” at the property. Records also refer to a temporary smoke alarm installation and boiler rewiring. However, the lack of evidence does not demonstrate when visits took place or what was involved. It has not demonstrated what it communicated to the resident or how it responded to his follow‑up enquiries after a missed appointment. The lack of clear repair notes and communication records is a failure.
9. An electrical supervisor inspected the property on 15 July 2025, noting “heavy DIY” throughout the property and several electrical concerns. The landlord arranged a further inspection with an electrical inspector for 30 July 2025. Additional issues were recorded within an internal email, but it has not provided any inspection reports to us. For investigations of this nature, it is essential for landlords to be able to evidence a clear record of the condition of the installation and the actions taken. In the absence of such documentation, it is difficult to understand the full basis of the landlord’s decisions or the extent of the issues identified.
10. Internal correspondence states the resident’s alterations were “not minor, but dangerous and a risk to themselves and others,” and that staff attended to make safe hazardous conditions. However, the landlord has not fully evidenced all these works in its repair records. This again demonstrates record keeping failures.
11. The tenancy agreement dates from 2013. Neither party has supplied the tenancy conditions applicable at that time. We have therefore relied on implied and widely accepted tenancy obligations that prohibit electrical alterations or changes to fixtures without landlord permission. These obligations are standard across the sector and were later expressly incorporated into the landlord’s written tenancy conditions. It is not unreasonable, particularly with electrical installations, for landlords to require a qualified person to complete any works and for permission to be granted prior to agreeing any works.
12. An EICR from 2021 deemed the electrical installation unsatisfactory, requiring 2 remedial actions. This is in contrast to the landlord’s statement in its stage 1 response that, “there was nothing wrong with the electrics at that stage”. While the 2 remedial actions appear to have remained outstanding, the report did not identify the more extensive defects found in July 2025. This suggests that the additional defects arose after 2021, supporting the landlord’s view that further alterations occurred during the resident’s occupation. This was a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.
13. The landlord has not provided earlier copies of EICR reports or a copy of a void inspection to us. However, due to the passing of time, this would not necessarily constitute a failure.
14. The resident reported that some sockets in the property were not functioning. The landlord attempted to investigate these faults, which was appropriate given the potential safety risks associated with failed circuits or damaged wiring.
15. The landlord said its investigation was hindered by the resident’s refusal to lift, or cover the cost of lifting, the flooring that he had installed without its consent. Access was necessary to examine wiring routes and diagnose faults. Without access, it could not fully investigate or conduct repairs. It follows that the resident’s refusal contributed to its inability to diagnose electrical faults efficiently and likely prolonged the issue.
16. The landlord identified that electrical changes had been done within the property without its consent. Where residents request permission to make changes to their home, it is usual for the landlord to ask for a competent person complete them, particularly where electrical work is involved given the safety risks. It would also need to ensure that alterations complied with building regulations, and the work was inspected/tester by a third-party certifier, if applicable. The resident has not provided evidence to the landlord or us to demonstrate the above.
17. The landlord has stated that it intends to recharge the resident for part of the remedial work, which he has disputed. Its handbook permits recharging for damage caused by DIY activity. It also confirmed it would not recharge for correcting issues identified in the 2021 EICR, which was reasonable. The decision appears proportionate in the circumstances.
18. The resident argues that the landlord has not proved his works caused the electrical failure, noting he was out of the country at the time this occurred. He also said that a staff member advised him that the failure could relate to water ingress, rodents, or system age. The cause cannot be determined without further investigative work and lifting the flooring, something which the landlord has attempted to do.
19. The landlord is entitled to rely on professional judgement when determining the probable risks and required remedial work. However, it is concerning that the resident has lived without electricity in parts of his home since December 2024, over a year, and it has failed to progress the matter.
20. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took reasonable steps, such as seeking legal advice or an injunction, to gain necessary access to lift the flooring and address the situation. It has a statutory duty to maintain safe electrical installations. Where unable to resolve matters directly with a resident, it would be reasonable to escalate through tenancy enforcement. This would enable it to satisfy itself that there are no further electrical risks within the home.
21. In summary, there were delays by both parties, however, the landlord retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring electrical safety. Combined with the record keeping and communication issues, this results in an overall failure finding. We have therefore made orders and awarded compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. However, it does not specify extension timescales. We have raised a learning point regarding this.
23. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 61 working days. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
24. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 September 2025. It issued its stage 2 response 34 days after escalation, which is not in line with its 20-working day timescale. We note the landlord extended its response date on 21 October 2025.
25. We recognise the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response and involved his local councillor due to a lack of progression. This resulted in avoidable time and trouble pursuing the complaint, likely causing distress, inconvenience, and frustration. While the landlord apologised for the complaint handling delay, it did not offer any redress to reflect the impact of its shortcomings. We have therefore awarded compensation in line with our guidance.

Learning

General learning

26. The landlord ought to ensure its complaints policy fully aligns with the Code in terms of extension timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should ensure it captures sufficient information within its repairs and communication logs to evidence its actions, interactions with residents, and decision making. It may wish to review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

28. The landlord did not evidence effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It could consider accessing our free Centre for Learning and reviewing our training videos for landlords on the importance of clear communication.