Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202402166)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402166

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

24 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 concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of a member of staff during and after a home visit.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her children. One of her children lives with Aspergers syndrome.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 December 2023 about a delay in the landlord attending to fix a blocked toilet. The landlord did not send a complaint response to the resident.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 February 2024. The resident said she felt that the landlord was targeting her and treating her unfairly. To support her complaint, she gave examples of past repair issues, the lack of a complaint response in December 2023, and she raised concerns about the housing officer’s conduct during a home check visit in January 2024. The landlord logged the complaint as an escalation request to stage 2.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 15 March 2024. Her complaint was about the conduct of her housing officer both during the home check visit and following the visit. The landlord logged this complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 March 2024. It confirmed that there were no outstanding repairs on its system. It also confirmed what had happened at the home check visit according to its records.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. It said it had spoken to the housing officer about the home check visit. It apologised and said it partially upheld the complaint. This was because it had not informed the housing officer that the resident was no longer available for the home check visit.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 10 May 2024. It said it had been about to conclude the stage 2 response when the resident had raised a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord said it had already responded to the new complaint as part of the stage 2 response. It said, although it had responded at stage 1, the resident had no further escalation options. It informed the resident that she should refer her case to us.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said she wanted the landlord to stop treating her unfairly and assign her a different housing officer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. At the time of this complaint neither complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This was because the landlord only responded to the first complaint (dated 19 December 2023) at stage 2, and the second complaint (dated 15 March 2024) at stage 1. Therefore, we consider that there has been a complaint handling failure, and the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. This means that the resident’s complaint falls within our jurisdiction.
  2. The resident’s complaint dated 28 February 2024, logged as an escalation request, details historical repair issues as part of her complaint. As these issues did not concern the complaint the resident referred to us about staff conduct, they will not form part of this investigation. In addition, part of the resident’s complaint to us was that the landlord had harassed her and treated her unfairly because of her sexuality and her means of income. However, as the resident did not raise these aspects of her complaint with the landlord, they will not form part of this investigation.
  3. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on hers and her children’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct during and after a home visit

  1. The landlord visited the resident on 18 January 2024 to conduct a home check visit. The evidence shows, during the visit, the landlord noted that there were 4 missing internal doors within the property. The evidence also shows that the landlord and resident discussed access rights to the rear of the property, the resident’s request to convert her front garden into a driveway, and the process for submitting an alteration request for permission to remove the internal doors.
  2. The landlord sent the resident a tenancy warning letter on 8 February 2024 due to the unauthorised removal of the doors. The letter said the resident was in breach of her tenancy agreement as she had not requested permission to remove the internal doors. The landlord quoted the resident’s tenancy conditions at paragraph 7.15 which said, the resident “must get the landlord’s permission in writing before making any alterations to the property”. The landlord asked the resident to reinstate the doors and said it would visit again on 6 March 2024 to check that she had carried out the work.
  3. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with both the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s handbook which says, “residents can make alterations or changes to their home but residents must submit an online request”. The handbook says that residents cannot carry out any alterations or changes until the landlord has given permission. It also says, if residents make improvements or alterations without written permission, it may tell residents to return the property to its original condition.
  4. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 13 February 2024. She said she was not aware that removing the doors was classed as an alteration. She said she would make a formal request to remove the doors based on her mental health needs due to past trauma. The resident said having closed doors caused her anxiety and her mental health to get worse.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 28 February 2024. She said she felt that the landlord was targeting her and treating her unfairly. She said this was having a detrimental impact on her and her children’s mental and emotional wellbeing. The resident said, in September 2023, she had asked if she could convert her front garden into a driveway as some other residents had done. She said the landlord refused her request as she did not have a dropped kerb. She said this was despite other residents using their gardens as driveways with no dropped kerb. The resident said she raised this again at the home check visit and the housing officer said they would look into the matter, but nothing had changed. The resident said this was unfair.
  6. The resident also said the housing officer had been late for the home check appointment on 18 January 2024. The resident said she cancelled the visit as she had other appointments to attend. However, she said the housing officer arrived at around 2:45pm, despite the cancellation. The resident said she felt she had no choice but to let the housing officer in. She said the housing officer found no issues, but at the end of the visit she told the housing officer that she had taken the doors off. The resident said the housing officer told her to put them back on for fire safety reasons, but she told the housing officer that they were not fire doors.
  7. The resident said she had received a tenancy warning letter from the housing officer which included a misquoted tenancy clause. She said she had made an alterations request on 13 February 2024, and she had asked the landlord to rearrange the follow up visit, but she had not heard anything back. The resident said she had been a good tenant for 10 years and she did not deserve to be penalised and treated unfairly, unjustly, and differently.
  8. The resident submitted a further request for permission to alter her property on 12 March 2024. She asked for permission to remove 3 standard doors. She also said if she had to reinstate the doors it would affect her human rights under Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects a peaceful right to enjoy her property. She said reinstating the doors would cause her, her son, and her grandson emotional harm.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 15 March 2024 following her amended request. It said it was willing to give the resident permission to remove 3 of the doors. However, it said she would need to reinstate the kitchen door. The landlord said it understood the resident’s mental health concerns. It said it was looking to make reasonable adjustments and had only asked her to reinstate the kitchen door. It said it had spoken to the repairs team for advice and the inspector advised that the property could be at risk of damp and mould if there was no kitchen door. The resident said the landlord was victimising her, just like it had with the driveway.
  10. Landlords have a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although we cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
  11. The landlord’s response appropriately showed it was aware of its duties under the Equality Act 2010, and that it had considered those duties in relation to the resident’s mental health concerns. It also showed that it had balanced those duties with the need to ensure it reduces the risk of damp and mould in its properties. The landlord’s response was also in line with its reasonable adjustments policy where it says it will make every effort to accommodate reasonable adjustment requests.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 March 2024 to raise a formal complaint. The resident referred to the home check visit, the removal of the doors, and the breach of tenancy letter she had received from the housing officer. She said the housing officer had sent her a message to see if she had replaced the doors. She said the housing officer had told her that she must replace the kitchen door as it was a fire door, but she was disputing this as it was a standard door. The resident said the housing officer also told her the kitchen door needed to be put back on to prevent damp and mould. The resident said she was unhappy with the housing officer’s conduct because they were abrupt and spoke over her. The resident said she felt victimised because other residents were getting away with so much. She asked the landlord to allocate her a new housing officer.
  13. The landlord sent the resident a complaint response on 19 March 2024. This was in response to the complaint raised on 28 February 2024. It acknowledged that the housing officer had arrived late. It said the housing officer apologised for being late and confirmed she had not received the cancellation message. The landlord said, during the visit, the housing officer confirmed that the resident would need to apply for a dropped kerb before it could consider her request to use her garden as a driveway. It said if it became aware of other residents using their gardens without a dropped kerb, it would investigate. It also confirmed it had received the resident’s alterations request on 28 February 2024 for permission to remove the internal doors, and it would provide the resident with a response soon.
  14. The landlord sent the resident a response to the second complaint on 28 March 2024. It repeated the response given on 19 March 2024. In addition, it said it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it had not relayed the message to cancel the appointment to the housing officer. It apologised for this. It also said it had spoken to the housing officer about their conduct as the resident had raised concerns. It apologised if the resident felt the housing officer had not dealt with her concerns appropriately. However, it was satisfied that the housing officer had dealt with the resident’s issues correctly and in a professional manner. It said it was satisfied with the housing officer’s approach and the actions they had taken. Therefore, they would remain the resident’s housing officer.
  15. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  16. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did complete an investigation into the resident’s concerns following her second complaint. The evidence shows it spoke to the housing officer, reviewed the evidence, and reviewed the actions taken and the processes followed. There is also no evidence to show the landlord acted outside of the terms of the tenancy agreement, its policies, or its duties and responsibilities. Therefore, in this case, given the landlord’s minor service failure, its apology represents reasonable redress for the identified failings.
  17. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 19 December 2023 about a delayed repair. Although the landlord’s records show it did not uphold the complaint, there is no evidence to show it sent the resident a response. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 February 2024. This was a separate complaint about staff conduct. Rather than logging this as a new formal complaint, the landlord logged this as a request to escalate to stage 2. This was inappropriate given it had not responded at stage 1, and it was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) (the Code) which says, “landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident”.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint about staff conduct on 15 March 2024. The landlord logged this as a new stage 1 complaint. It also sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 March 2024, in relation to the 28 February 2024 complaint, which was within the timeframe set within its complaints policy.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. However, it told the resident on 10 May 2024 that it had logged the stage 1 complaint and responded in error, as it had already considered the same complaint as part of its stage 2 response dated 19 March 2024. It told the resident that she could not escalate the complaint to stage 2. It said she would need to refer her complaint to this Service.
  6. This was in line with the Code, which says, “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies. In instances where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision”. The landlord’s complaint policy excludes complaints that have previously been investigated, responded to and concluded.
  7. However, this meant that neither of the resident’s complaints had fully completed the landlord’s complaints process, which likely caused the resident confusion, time, and trouble. In addition to this, the landlord did not recognise or acknowledge its complaint handling failures in relation to the first complaint and escalation to stage 2.
  8. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we find that there has been maladministration. The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and it did not act in line with its complaints policy or the Code. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. We have also made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct during and after a home visit.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the time and trouble likely caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.