Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202348399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348399

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

26 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The purchase of the resident’s former property, home move, and associated communications throughout the process.
   2. The condition of the resident’s new property.

Background

2. The resident’s secure tenancy began in September 2023. Prior to this he was a leaseholder of a flat in the landlord’s block of mixed tenure properties. The resident is elderly and his communications and complaint to the landlord were made on his behalf by his relatives. For the purposes of this report, the resident and his relatives are referred to as ‘the resident’, except where it is necessary to distinguish between them.
3. Duringlate2022, the landlord told tenants and leaseholders, including the resident, about its plans to vacate the block. It explained that this was due to structural issues and its proposed demolition.
4. The landlord noted, in May 2023, that it was purchasing the resident’s property at a valuation that did not consider the demolition. It said that the resident had declined its valuation offer the previous month. It is unclear when, but at some point prior to July 2023, it offered the resident a tenancy to one of its properties.
5. During August 2023, the landlord completed a void inspection of the property that he moved into the following month. It negotiated with the resident about multiple matters regarding its property purchase and his move, and renewed the kitchen in his new property.
6. From October 2023 to January 2024, the resident chased the landlord about outstanding matters regarding its purchase of his property and move. He complained, on 8 January 2024, about its poor communications, delays in handling financial matters, and what he (his relatives) felt was the lack of consideration of his age.
7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, on 13 February 2024, apologised for its delays and “lack of communications”. It referred to its previous letter concerning property moving costs. It acknowledged his unhappiness with its associated offer and said that its letter had provided details of how he could discuss this.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 February 2024. He expressed his unhappiness with the condition of his new property at the time it was offered to him, the moving cost funds he had now received, and the landlord’s overall communications. He said that he had still not received the property purchase funds.
9. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 4 March 2024, apologised for its poor service and communications. It offered £100 compensation for this. It explained its position regarding moving costs, and that the property purchase funds would be paid at the conclusion of the conveyance process.
10. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint because, while all financial matters had since been settled, getting to that point had been a “constant battle” and the landlord had lacked the processes to deal with the matter. He did not want others to have the same experience.

Assessment and findings

The property purchase, move, and associated matters

11. The landlord provided us little information regarding events from late 2022, when it made its decision to demolish the block, until 12 July 2023, when the resident expressed his frustration at its failure to respond to his associated queries. It has therefore failed to demonstrate that it communicated effectively during this time, which it later accepted.
12. The evidence shows its internal discussions from that point regarding its negotiations with the resident through to the start of his tenancy in September 2023. The resident’s view that matters had been a “constant battle” was understandable, but the landlord has demonstrated its consideration of those matters and the basis for its decisions through the negotiations. Nonetheless, as it also later accepted, its communication of those decisions continued to be poor through to his complaint in January 2024.
13. Where there are accepted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord acted in line with the dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. The resident told us that the landlord had appeared to lack the processes to effectively deal with the overall matter. His view was supported by the landlord’s acceptance that it lacked a relevant policy. Its internal discussions, from August 2023, showed how it used his concerns, along with specific points that he had raised, to inform the development of a ‘decant policy’, which it implemented in February 2024.
15. The landlord told us that it no longer employed 2 of its officers most involved in the resident’s case. It said that this had contributed to some of its communication failings and its lack of records prior to July 2023. It described its learning from this, his complaint, and from the development and implementation of the policy referred to above, “to avoid future occurrences”. While it does not alter the resident’s experience, the landlord has demonstrated its efforts to learn from the outcomes of his complaint, in line with both the dispute resolution principles and his wish that it improve its future service.
16. The resident’s relatives told us that their handling of matters on his behalf had largely shielded him from the detriment of the landlord’s communication failings. They expressed their understandable concerns had they been unable to do so.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response, in March 2024, accepted and apologised for its “level of service and quality of our communication”. It offered £100 compensation for this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the detriment experienced directly by the resident because of the landlord’s service and communication failings.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response also referred to its learning which, as above, it has since expanded upon. It stated its position on the property purchase and financial matters, which the resident has confirmed have concluded.
19. Overall, the landlord accepted and apologised for its communication and service failings. It offered compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It demonstrated how it used the resident’s concerns, albeit belatedly, to inform its development of an appropriate policy and its learning from the outcomes of his complaint to improve its future service.

The condition of the new property

20. The resident’s complaint escalation request, on 19 February 2024, said that the condition of the property he had moved into in September 2023 had been “terrible” but did not state any further details. No evidence has been seen that he raised related concerns around the time that he moved into the property beyond his wish that the kitchen be renewed.
21. The landlord’s relevant internal discussions, during August 2023, noted its ‘void’ supervisor’s record that the kitchen was old but not in need of replacement. The evidence shows that the renewal of the kitchen became part of its broader negotiations with the resident, who said that his acceptance of the property was contingent on it.
22. Photographs of the resident’s leasehold property show that it was internally equipped and decorated to a high standard. It was therefore understandable that he would view his new property as being of a lower standard. The landlord’s internal discussions noted that the kitchen would not be renewed in any other circumstances but that it would do so to progress matters. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
23. On 17 August 2023 the landlord stated that it had viewed the property with the resident and that he had “confirmed he was happy with the new kitchen and will be accepting (the new property)”. It further noted that it had left him with access ahead of the start of his tenancy, to allow for the arrangement of flooring and decoration. Its stage 2 response said that it had listened to the resident’s concerns about his new property and had fitted a new kitchen.
24. Overall, no evidence has been seen that the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property prior to his move beyond his wish for the kitchen to be renewed, which formed part of the broader negotiations. The landlord showed a resolution focused approach by completing works that were beyond its regular standard to progress the negotiations.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the purchase of his former property and home move.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of his new property.