Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202424231)

Decision
Case ID	202424231
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident complained about various maintenance issues in her home, including damp. The landlord completed repairs to several parts of the property. The resident complained to us that an issue with the living room floor had been not identified or repaired, and that she had not been able to use the room.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A problem with the living room floor and the resident’s inability to use the room.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the problem with the living room floor and the resident’s inability to use the room.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of a problem with the living room floor and the resident’s inability to use the room

The landlord did not acknowledge the additional delay and inconvenience to the resident after it had to send a second inspector to identify a problem with the living room floor. It also did not address the resident’s complaint that she could not use the room.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord did not follow its own complaints policy in terms of timeliness, and it did not adequately acknowledge its delay.

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 £275 made up as follows: £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by not acknowledging the additional delay and by not considering whether there was a loss of use. £75 for 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.	No later than 28 May 2026
2	Review order The landlord must, by the due date, review the resident’s complaint and decide whether the situation comprised a loss of use of part of the property. If it did it should pay compensation to the resident accordingly. Given that it did not have a compensation policy at the time of the complaint it should use its discretion to rely on its current policy, or our own compensation guidance if necessary. Regardless of the decision it reaches it must inform both the resident and us of the outcome of this review by the due date and provide a clear and reasonable explanation for its decision.	No later than 28 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £275 made up as follows:

£200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by not acknowledging the additional delay and by not considering whether there was a loss of use.
£75 for 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.

No later than

28 May 2026

Review order

The landlord must, by the due date, review the resident’s complaint and decide whether the situation comprised a loss of use of part of the property. If it did it should pay compensation to the resident accordingly.

Given that it did not have a compensation policy at the time of the complaint it should use its discretion to rely on its current policy, or our own compensation guidance if necessary.

Regardless of the decision it reaches it must inform both the resident and us of the outcome of this review by the due date and provide a clear and reasonable explanation for its decision.

No later than

28 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about rising damp in her living room, as well as various other maintenance issues. She said she was taking medication for breathing issues and that her children had medical needs including asthma, autism, and sensory and learning disabilities.
5 and 6 August 2024	The landlord contacted the resident and said it was unable to issue its stage 1 complaint response because it needed more time. The resident said she had been told it would another 4 weeks before work was undertaken, and that she could not access her kitchen as she had been told to move the furniture from the living room into there. She said her breathing was suffering, and she still had a mouldy carpet in the living room.
Between 9 and 12 August 2024	The landlord carried out work in the resident’s home including chimney repairs, damp proof course injections and replastering.
19 August 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response, explaining the work already done, and that further plastering work would be carried out in the next 90 days. It said that an inspection had taken place about rising damp but that no water ingress had been found.
28 August 2024	The resident escalated the complaint and said she was very dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and their impact on her home, particularly regarding the living room and its floor. She said she also had to pay for her sofa to be professionally cleaned.
12 September 2024	A representative from the landlord’s maintenance team visited the resident following completion of plastering works. The representative said she could see no issue with the living room floor, other than cracked latex where the carpet gripper was removed.
19 September 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident outlining work that had taken place. It said the officer had found no issues with the living room floor, and no issues with the sofa. It detailed the work carried out and said the scope of works was now complete. The landlord referred to correspondence from the resident which it said indicated that she did not want a further inspection to take place and said it was withdrawing the stage 2 complaint.
20 September 2024	The resident contacted the landlord and said she disagreed that there was no issue with the living room floor, and that no test for damp had been carried out. She chased a response three days later.
Referral to the Ombudsman – 23 September 2024	The resident complained to us and said she wanted the living room floor to be inspected properly because it was wet. She said the damp and mould had affected her son’s breathing.
Between September and October 2024	The resident continued to chase the issue with the landlord. The landlord inspected on 9 and 10 October 2024, and confirmed that the living room subfloor was the cause of the damp and that work would be needed to rectify it.
21 October 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It apologised that the issue remained ongoing, confirmed that the cause of the damp had been identified, and said work to address it was scheduled for 4 and 5 November 2024.
4-5 November 2024	Work to remedy the damp issue was carried out. The landlord later gave the resident £800 to replace her carpet and have her sofa cleaned.
Contact with the Ombudsman	The resident told us that, while the work had been completed, she remained dissatisfied about the landlord’s handling of the repair, and in particular that she was unable to use her living room for a prolonged period.

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 a problem with the living room floor and the resident’s inability to use the room
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that the damp had affected her health and that of her children. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it might last. We have not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

The resident’s complaint to the landlord was about various maintenance matters, but her complaint to us was about the outstanding problem with the living room floor. This has, therefore, been the focus of our investigation.
The evidence shows that, after the resident reported maintenance issues, the landlord completed work at the property. Some of this work, such as a damp proof course, plastering, and chimney repair, was intended to resolve damp and water ingress. This was major work and took several months. In the circumstances that was not unreasonable considering the work’s nature and scope, and nothing in the evidence indicates failings in the landlord’s handling of them.
In her stage 2 complaint, the resident said that due to the ongoing problem with her living room floor, all of her living room furniture was stored in the kitchen, and that she therefore had no complete use of any one room, and could not use the kitchen to cook. The evidence indicates that the resident’s living room furniture was stored in the kitchen for a period of at least three months. The landlord did not address or respond to this point.
The resident told us she had asked to be moved to a different property while the work was carried out, but the landlord refused and said nothing was available. However, no evidence of this has been provided by either the resident or landlord. Because of that this issue is not something this investigation can assess.
In September 2024, when other work had been carried out, an operative from the landlord’s maintenance team said she thought there was no issue with the living room floor. The resident disputed this finding and told the landlord she felt she was not being listened to. The landlord sent a different inspector 3 weeks later, who confirmed there was a problem with the floor.
The landlord’s complaint responses covered the relevant issues and provided details of inspections, work identified, and further work to be carried out. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for the ongoing issue with the floor, but it did not acknowledge that there had been a delay due to its initial assessment, and that the second inspection had taken place only after the resident had continued to chase it.
Furthermore, the stage 2 response did not address the resident’s complaint about not being able to use of some of her rooms. The landlord has told us that at the time, it did not have a compensation policy (it has since put one in place). While the landlord did not have a policy, basic practice for landlords is to consider reimbursement or compensation if a tenant has not had the whole use of one or more rooms in their home. Not considering the resident’s complaint about this was therefore a missed opportunity and a further failing.
We have made orders to put this right, including a compensation order based on our compensation guidance for failings of the scale and nature found in this report.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint after 24 working days, outside the 10 working days required by its policy and the Code. The landlord had contacted the resident to explain that it needed more time to respond to the complaint, though this was after more than 10 working days had already elapsed. It said it aimed to respond by 13 August 2024, but did so only on 19 August 2024.
During the process, the landlord wrote to the resident saying it understood that she did not want any further investigation and it was therefore withdrawing the stage 2 complaint. No evidence of that has been provided, and her communications to the landlord indicate otherwise. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 38 working days after the complaint escalation. This is outside the 20 working days required by its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge the delay.
There was service failure in the time taken to respond to the resident’s complaints and we have made a compensation order to remedy this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records, including inspection and work logs, were of an appropriate standard, which enabled us to robustly consider its actions and decisions regarding the substantive issue and the associated complaint.

Communication

There was evidence of communication with the resident throughout the process, though the landlord did not sufficiently explain delays to its complaints process. It should reflect on this and ensure that communication about delays is more effective in the future.