Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202500722)

Decision
Case ID	202500722
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

The resident reported that the landlord had not completed decoration to the kitchen walls and ceiling and had not completed painting to part of the living room ceiling. He said these issues had been outstanding for 2 years and were affecting his physical and mental health.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to redecoration of the kitchen and living room.
The associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found service failure in the landlord’s response to redecoration of the kitchen and living room.
We found service failure in the associated complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Redecoration

The landlord was not responsible for kitchen decoration and explained this clearly to the resident. However, it failed to proactively manage and complete the agreed living room works following the stage 2 complaint. It made several attempts to gain access but it did not clearly resolve misunderstandings. It did not follow through on its commitment to provide a new appointment date. As a result, the agreed works remained outstanding beyond the settlement timeframe.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not fully comply with its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code, as the stage 1 response was late and it sent the extensions after the resolution target dates had passed. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.

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 14 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s response to redecoration requests £50 for the delays in complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 May 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the living room celling works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or the steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. it must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot	No later than 14 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 December 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said he had been waiting 2 years for outstanding redecoration. He said he had contacted the landlord’s helpline and been given appointments which were then cancelled. He explained he has long‑term mental and physical health conditions and felt the condition of his home was affecting this. He said decoration to the kitchen wall and ceiling was outstanding, as well as part of the living room ceiling. He said he felt the landlord was not responding to his concerns.
20 January 2025	The landlord requested an extension until 3 February 2025.
10 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had reviewed its records and spoken to its housing disrepair solicitor and claims manager the schedule of works for the housing disrepair claim did not include kitchen decoration, and the resident’s solicitor accepted these terms on 1 February 2024 its records showed the resident had told operatives he did not want the living room redecoration to proceed until the kitchen was completed the surveyor’s report found no valid claim for the kitchen the tenancy terms made kitchen decoration the resident’s responsibility the resident could raise a new request for the living room works by contacting the landlord online or by telephone
13 February 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said: in 2009 the landlord began a home improvement programme for high‑rise buildings, but the contractor did not finish the works before going into bankruptcy some works were started and not finished, and some were never started his bathroom and kitchen were never improved or completed he had lived with mould for years and had repeatedly cleaned it, but it continued to return he had not refused any works but had not been aware of appointments, and he was unhappy that the landlord was treating the mould rather than addressing the kitchen or living room someone contacted him to ask why he had refused works and said they were there to do the kitchen; he told them that was not correct, and he was told he would receive a new appointment the landlord should improve the home every 5 to 6 years
21 March 2025	The landlord asked to extend to complaint response until 4 April 2025.
04 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: on 9 January 2025 the resident contacted it after receiving a text about a fungicidal wash to the living room, as he was not aware an appointment had been arranged the operative attended later that morning, and records showed the resident said the works were not required as he was waiting for decorating it had previously attempted the same works on 8 July 2024, but the resident was not at home and a voicemail was left it apologised if the resident had not been given sufficient notice for the January 2025 appointment, but said it could not find evidence of incorrect no‑access records the resident referred to a home improvement programme from 2009; due to the time elapsed, it could not obtain further details but confirmed this did not affect the housing disrepair claim outcome the schedule of works agreed under the housing disrepair claim formed the basis of the settlement, although it acknowledged the resident did not agree with its content it could not comment further on the surveyor’s report, despite the resident’s dissatisfaction and pending complaint to the surveyor the repair order for washing, sealing and redecorating the living room remained open and a new appointment would be arranged it reminded the resident of his tenancy obligation to provide access for repairs the schedule of works did not include kitchen decoration, and the resident’s solicitor accepted this on 1 February 2024 the surveyor’s report stated no valid claim existed for the kitchen under the tenancy agreement, internal redecoration of the kitchen was the resident’s responsibility
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us and said his main concern was the landlord’s response to the outstanding redecoration works. He confirmed that he had previously made a housing disrepair claim but said that some issues were not recorded with the court as part of that claim. He said that the landlord had completed most of the agreed works last year, particularly to the bathroom. However, he said that decoration to the kitchen and part of the living room ceiling remained outstanding. He disputed the landlord’s position that the kitchen works did not form part of the housing disrepair claim. As a resolution, the resident said he wanted all outstanding works completed. This included decoration to the kitchen walls and ceiling, replacement kitchen cupboards, and completion of decoration to part of the living room ceiling.

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 response to redecoration of the kitchen and living room
Finding	Service failure

What we have not looked at

The resident said that the housing disrepair claim included his kitchen despite the landlord disputing this. As this matter forms part of a legal claim that was settled, we cannot assess it. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the scope or outcome of that claim, he should seek further advice from his solicitor.
Part of the resident’s complaint relates to kitchen works that were started in around 2008 and not completed. The landlord said it no longer holds sufficient records due to the time that has passed. We do not investigate complaints that were not raised with the landlord within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. The resident did not raise a formal complaint about these works until December 2024 and there is no evidence he was prevented from doing so earlier. For these reasons, we have not investigated this part of the complaint.
The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be quicker, fairer and more effective for him to pursue any claim for personal injury through the courts, where independent medical evidence can be considered to determine the cause of any injury and its duration. While we cannot make findings about medical causation or personal injury. We can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions or inaction and may award compensation where failings have been identified.

What we have looked at

The resident complained that the landlord had not completed decoration to the kitchen walls and ceiling and had not completed painting to part of the living room ceiling. He said these issues had been outstanding for around 2 years and had affected his physical and mental health.
Before the resident made his complaint on 20 December 2024 the landlord had already seen information from 2 relevant inspections. An independent expert inspection on 7 December 2022 found no valid disrepair claim for the kitchen and recommended no repair works in that room. The report noted staining but found no active mould and no underlying defect requiring repair. A later housing disrepair (HDR) inspection carried out by the landlord on 25 October 2023 led to a settlement agreement which included works to the living room, bathroom and hallway, and did not include kitchen redecoration.
The resident’s solicitor accepted the settlement on behalf of the resident on 1 February 2024. The agreement confirmed that only the listed works formed part of the agreement and that kitchen decoration was not included. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for decorating the inside of the home unless exceptional hardship applies. The landlord is responsible for repairing internal walls and ceilings where they are damaged, but not for redecorating once repairs are completed.
The inspections therefore provided a reasonable basis for the landlord to conclude that it had no repair obligation for the kitchen and that any decoration was the resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence that the landlord separately agreed to carry out kitchen decoration.
Although the landlord was not responsible for kitchen decoration, the resident contacted the landlord several times seeking clarity on whether the kitchen should be replastered or repainted. The landlord sought legal advice and confirmed internally on 7 February 2025 that kitchen decoration was not included in the settlement and remained the resident’s responsibility.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 10 February 2025, the landlord confirmed that kitchen redecoration was not included in the settlement. It also told the resident that he could raise the outstanding living room works and that it would attend to complete them. This was not reasonable, as the living room works had already been agreed and should have been proactively managed by the landlord.
The living room ceiling formed part of the accepted HDR settlement. The expert report recommended that the landlord wash, seal, and redecorate the ceiling due to historic water staining, and the settlement required these works to be completed within 90 days.
The landlord attempted to gain access on 3 occasions between July and December 2023 but could not do so. It attended the property on 8 March 2024 to complete works in other rooms. The landlord’s records note that the resident said he would contact it to confirm when he wanted the living room works completed. The landlord attempted to attend again on 8 July 2024 but could not gain access. On 28 October 2024, the resident said he had treated the mould himself and that he now required decoration works to the living room and kitchen only.
A further appointment took place on 9 January 2025. Records from both parties show that the resident did not want the living room works carried out, as he believed the kitchen should be addressed first. The landlord later identified that an internal error had caused the job to be incorrectly labelled as “kitchen” rather than “living room” at times.
When the operative attended on 9 January 2025 the landlord should have clearly explained that kitchen decoration was not part of the settlement, clarified the purpose of the appointment, and rearranged the living room works with clear notice. Instead, the misunderstanding remained unresolved, and this contributed to the resident declining access. While the landlord made reasonable attempts overall to complete the living room works, its communication on this date created avoidable confusion that delayed progress.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said again that no works were required to the kitchen, as these related only to redecoration. It confirmed that the job to wash, seal, and redecorate the living room ceiling remained open and said it would provide the resident with a new appointment date. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a new date for these works. This was not appropriate, as completing the living room works formed part of both the stage 2 commitment and the accepted HDR settlement. As a result, it appears the living room works have remained outstanding since February 2024.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy allows the landlord to extend these timescales where a case is complex. Where it does so, it must explain the reasons for the delay and provide a clear revised response date, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident raised his complaint on 20 December 2024. In line with the landlord’s policy, a stage 1 response should have been issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord issued an extension on 20 January 2025 which was after the stage 1 response should have been provided. The extension set a revised deadline of 3 February 2025. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 10 February 2025 which was late and did not comply with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 13 February 2025. The landlord issued an extension letter on 21 March 2025 which was after the stage 2 response was due, setting a revised deadline of 4 April 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response which met the revised deadline.
Overall, the landlord did not manage the complaint fully in line with its complaints policy or the Code. It issued the stage 1 response late, even after setting an extension. While the landlord issued the stage 2 response on time following an extension, the earlier delays meant landlord did not handle the complaint as promptly or efficiently as expected. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.

Learning

Clearer internal coordination and communication help ensure residents receive consistent and accurate information about repair responsibilities and the scope of works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Accurate, clearly labelled repair records reduce confusion about which works are scheduled and the specific locations they relate to.

Communication

Clear explanations of decisions and appointments, including explicit confirmation of what work will and will not be carried out, improve residents’ understanding and experience.