Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202406753)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the bin rooms on the estate, including the lack of cleaning, repairs needed due to vandalism and a rat infestation caused by crumbling drains. The resident does not feel that the issues raised were fully addressed or that a plan of action had been put into place by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The upkeep and repairs of communal areas including the condition of bin room doors, bin room cleaning, and damaged paving.
   2. Reports of pest issues in communal areas.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the handling of the upkeep and repairs of communal areas including the condition of bin room doors, bin room cleaning, and damaged paving.
4. There was maladministration in the handling of a pest infestation in communal areas.
5. There was maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to carry out repairs to the bin rooms or paths within a reasonable timescale. It did not carry out regular cleaning of the bin rooms in a consistent manner as agreed.
7. It did not take adequate action to address the pest infestation or follow through on its actions to arrange a drain survey in a timely manner.
8. Poor communication meant the resident needed to request and provide updates over a prolonged timescale. There were also issues with the record keeping which caused confusion.
9. In relation to the complaint handling, the landlord did not fully address the issues raised and the resident was not informed of how they would be taken forward.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

10. We have considered the landlord’s actions in relation to handling of the upkeep and repairs of communal areas during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising the complaint, and from the date of the complaint onwards – as this is what prompted the complaint. We have not reviewed back to 2008.
11. The resident has raised similar complaint issues which have occurred since this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We understand the resident has progressed these issues through the landlord’s complaint procedure separately. Our investigation will only look at the matters raised as part of this complaint, but the resident can ask us to investigate the more recent complaints as well if they wish.

What we did investigate

12. The resident has been raising issues about the maintenance of the estate for several years. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s previous requests for action which led to the resident raising a complaint. Residents should not have to raise complaints so that landlords act upon service issues or repairs raised.
13. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed repairs were needed to the bin rooms and work was needed to the paving on the estate, but it did not provide any expected dates for work to start. Although the landlord explained the Housing Officer would keep the resident updated, it did not appear to follow through with this resulting in further emails from the resident. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to improve communication with the resident and potentially resolve the complaint at stage 1. The landlord did not identify any service failings in this response.
14. The landlord could not provide us with a copy of a repair policy in place at the time the complaint was raised. Its current repair policy does not appear to provide specific timescales for communal repairs, which it categorises as large non-urgent repairs in its tenancy handbook. It’s repair policy says, ‘it will keep communal areas safe and well maintained, that it will carry out regular inspections and will provide planned and responsive maintenance’. In the stage 2 response, the landlord explained repairs to the bin room doors were pending and the reason for the delays. Although apologies were offered, dates for work to take place were still not provided. The landlord has since provided evidence that repairs to the bin room doors were completed on 11 Nov 2024. This is a least 8 months after the complaint was initially raised. The damaged paving was not mentioned in this response. The landlord provided evidence to show some areas of damaged paving on the estate were repaired in April 2024, however the resident was still requesting updates from the landlord about this issue in August 2024. This demonstrated the repairs had not been completed. The timescales for carrying out the repairs in the communal areas appears excessive and is a failing by the landlord.
15. The landlord confirmed it does not keep records relating to cleaning of the bin rooms as the caretaking team were responsible for doing this. It was not clear how often the bin rooms were cleaned or whether this has been ongoing since the complaint was raised. This is a recordkeeping failure as we would expect the landlord and its contractors to keep accurate records of what work has been carried out and when. As cleaning issues had been repeatedly raised, it appears the work was either not being done to a good standard or at all. This was not reasonable, and recommendations have been raised for the landlord to consider how this can be managed more effectively.
16. The resident explained that issues with his mental health have made it difficult to deal with these matters. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, but it does not appear to have considered the impact continually dealing with these issues had. Evidence provided shows that the landlord has not been proactive, has not kept to agreements or kept the resident updated. While it is understood there is an expectation for residents to report issues in their area, the landlord should not be solely reliant on residents, nor should they have to repeatedly follow up the issues. Staff and contractors should be proactively reporting and progressing issues on the estate, especially as the resident is paying for this service. This is a further failing by the landlord.
17. When investigating complaints, we look at all the evidence to decide if the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord has not demonstrated this. The resident had to repeatedly provide and request updates, repairs were not carried out in reasonable timeframes, and the stage 2 response did not provide a final resolution to the issues raised. The landlord did not identify any service failings in its responses, therefore did not provide any improvements or appear to learn from the issues raised. We have therefore found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 in compensation in respect of the failings identified in the handling of the upkeep and repairs of communal areas and £100 for the communication failures identified in the report.

What we did not investigate

18. As mentioned above, we have only considered the landlord’s actions in relation to handling of reports of pest issues in communal areas during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising the complaint.
19. The resident has stated that the pest issue has recurred, and he has raised a further complaint with the landlord concerning this which is being addressed separately. As mentioned above the resident has the option to ask us to investigate this.

What we did investigate

20. The resident raised the issues with rats in the bin stores as part of his complaint on 6 March 2024. On 2 April 2024 he raised a further complaint explaining that the rat issues were estate wide. Due to the similarity of the issues raised, the landlord combined these complaints which was reasonable.
21. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that instructions had already been issued for a drain survey to be carried out and that it had met with Operations Managers who had agreed to fund pest control work to eradicate the rats on the estate. No dates were provided for the drain survey or when the pest control works would start, although the resident was informed, he would be updated. While the landlord does not have timescales for its communal repairs, it is good practice for it to provide estimated start dates for any work agreed.
22. In the stage 2 response the landlord explained that following the Teams meeting on 6 June 2024, a contractor had been instructed to inspect the pipework due to the issues with the rats. No explanation was provided as to why the drain survey requested at stage 1 of the complaint had not been carried out or whether pest control work has started. The appointment for the drain survey had been arranged for 18 June 2024 which was the day before the stage 2 response letter was issued, but no update was provided. While the landlord apologised to the resident for any frustration caused it did not identify any service failures or offer any redress for these.
23. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, it informed him he would be kept updated, but he was not. This resulted in the resident requesting further updates months after the final response had been issued. The landlord provided us with evidence confirming the drain survey was carried out on 20 June 2024. This was over 2 months after it was requested as part of the stage 1 response. The drain survey confirmed some short-term, urgent repairs were needed, as well as repairs within 1-2 years. The short-term urgent repairs were carried out on 28 March 2025, with the remaining recommended repairs being completed on 11 June 2025, just under a year after the initial drain survey. This was an excessive delay. It is not clear from the evidence provided what impact, if any this had on the pest issue at the time.
24. From the evidence provided its does not appear that the landlord has followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. While apologies were provided in the responses, no meaningful resolutions were confirmed, and no evidence was provided to confirm the pest issues were resolved. We have found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £200 in compensation in respect of the failings identified in the handling of reports of pest issues in communal area.

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that landlords should acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. The landlord should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord has committed to acknowledging its complaints within 3 working days at each stage of the process and it follows the code in respect of its complaint response timescales.
26. The landlord’s complaint policy says that residents must explain their reasons for an escalation, being unhappy with the outcome or exercising their right to escalation are not justified reasons for the landlord to carry out a stage 2 investigation. This is a failing and is not compliant with the Code.
27. The resident raised his complaint on 6 March 2024, and this was acknowledged the following day. The resident chased the complaint response on 2 April 2024 and received an undated extension letter by email that day saying that a response would be provided by 4 April 2024. The landlord said the letter was generated for posting on 26 March 2024. We’ve seen no proof of posting.  The stage 1 response was then issued on 4 April 2024. This was within expected policy timescales and the code.
28. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 May 2024. This was not acknowledged by the landlord until 3 June 2024, 5 working days outside its policy timescale. While this is a failing, it has not caused any detriment to the resident as the stage 2 response was provided within expected timescales on 19 June 2024.
29. The landlord’s complaint policy states ‘if additional complaints are raised during a Stage 1 investigation and they are related to the initial complaint; they will be incorporated into the response’. This is reasonable, although good practice would be for the landlord to make residents aware when they are doing this.
30. The landlord provided us with a stage 1 response dated 4 April 2024. However, in an email to the resident, the landlord attached a stage 1 response dated 27 March 2024. The opening paragraph and the date were the only differences between this stage 1 response, and the stage 1 response provided in evidence to us. In addition, in an email on 5 April 2024, the landlord told the resident that the stage 1 response would be issued soon. These contradictions raise serious concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, as it should be able to provide definitive proof of the date a complaint was issued to a resident. This is a failing of the Code.
31. In its stage 2 response the landlord thanked the resident for taking the time to have a Teams meeting as it had a better understanding of the issues. This was a positive step to resolve the issues. The landlord explained it had gone further than reviewing the stage 1 response which had prolonged the response; however, it stopped short of apologising for the delay in issuing this. The landlord did not provide responses to the resident’s queries relating to the soil disturbance around the stopcocks, the damaged paths, the cleaning of the bin stores, the date of the stage 1 letter or the anti social behaviour on the estate, even though the resident raised these in his escalation letter and the Teams discussion. This was not only a failing but a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the complaint while matters were still within its own complaint’s procedure.
32. The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to his complaints could have been better. It appears that the extension letter and the stage 1 response that were posted did not arrive. While the landlord cannot be held accountable for post issues, it is not clear why it did not use email to send responses once the resident made it aware of these issues. It was also noted that other staff members responding to issues outside of the complaint process provided conflicting information which confused matters. This is failure of record keeping and recommendations have been made to consider these issues.
33. The responses provided by the landlord at both stages of the complaint were very poor as no outcomes were provided and few service failures were identified. The final response did not provide any resolution to the initial issues raised; it did not include or address the additional concerns raised in the escalation, while it identified some service failures it did not offer any redress for these, and it did not provide a resolution to the complaint. This has given the impression that the landlord did not fully understand the complaint issues raised and it does not comply with the Code. We have found maladministration, so we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 for its failings in the handling of the complaint.

Learning

34. The landlord’s complaint handling needs improvement. Issues raised by the resident were not fully investigated, there was no attempt to rectify the issues, service failings were not identified, and redress was not considered for these. The landlord has not fully complied with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s record keeping needs to be improved to ensure that accurate information is always provided.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with residents needs improved. In this case the resident needed to repeatedly request and provide updates in relation to repairs and his complaint. The landlord was reactive rather than proactive and several people were responding to the resident outside of the complaint process causing duplication and confusion.