Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202421293)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421293

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

22 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in 3 bedroom semi-detached house. She lives in the property with her family.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 21 June 2024. She explained she had raised issues for 10 years, dating back to 6 February 2014, about damp and mould. This included the impact on hers and her family’s health and cited legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as she believed her home was a category 1 hazard. She explained further that:
1. A Decent Home Survey highlighted that her home was a category 1 hazard due to the damp and mould. It was completing a report after 10 years of telling it that her home was making her ill.
2. Her doctor diagnosed her after 14 months of being ill with, an auto immune disease. She said they prescribed her with immunosuppressant medications on the day of her complaint.
3. Her GP had warned her about how she was going to handle/survive living in the property with the damp and mould. She provided a letter from her doctors. She wanted the landlord to finally take the matter seriously because choosing to do the bare minimum had cost her, her health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 July 2024. It found that:
1. After speaking to her on 4 July 2024 she said that she did not always report the damp and mould issues as she had a spray that treated the mould at home. It said she should still report the issues as it logged them, and it could then see a pattern or any reoccurring issues. It could then put means in place to investigate the cause. If it was unaware that the mould returned, or the property was damp again they could not take the next course of action.
2. Her property had the “Decent Home Survey” completed on 10 May 2024. From this survey report, there had been work identified about damp and mould. It said that once it sorted the funding/grant and contract, it would carry out the work in priority order. It could not provide her with a date when it would do this as it was still designing the project.
3. As she reported mould during their call, it had asked for operatives to attend and assess the situation about the damp and mould and the dampness of the wall (rear end of the house). The appointment was due to take place on 15 July 2024. Once they had conducted the visit, it would add any work required to the system and it would send an appointment date via text/ letter.
4. During their conversation on 4 July 2024 she asked if she could move house based on medical grounds, damp and mould, and overcrowding (6 people in a 3-bed house). It would contact her housing officer to visit her about the best course of action. Based on medical grounds, she would need to complete a priority form so that an occupational therapist could do an assessment.
5. It spoke with her on 5 July 2024 and she said she had not registered for a transfer. She said she was happy to complete the online housing registration and priority form for medical/overcrowding herself. It had explained what information she needed and it would arrange a follow up telephone call the following week.
6. It reported her concerns about her bathroom extractor fan to the repairs team, and it made an appointment for 10 July 2024 for an operative to check the extractor fan.
7. It said it did not uphold her complaint. She needed to report issues when they occur so that it could build a clear picture of the root cause.
The resident disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response and escalated her complaint on 16 July 2024. She raised concerns about the accuracy of its response. She raised several issues and:
1. Said she had not said she had a spray. Instead she said she was sick of its operatives attending and offering her sprays she had previously bought and used which had not helped the situation.
2. Raised concerns about it suggesting she was not reporting the issue enough. She queried how many times she had to report it for the landlord to class it as enough.
3. Said if it was unaware of her concerns, why did it conduct the decent home survey. The person she spoke to said that it carried out the survey due to the number of times she complained about damp and mould at her home.
4. She told the landlord that after 4 days of taking her medication, she had to stop because she had a severe sinus infection that she could not get rid of. This resulted in her face swelling up and the skin on her face peeling off.
5. She continued to raise her concerns about the impact of the situation on her health. She discussed the fact its operatives who attended identified issues she had pointed out to it previously, and agreed it needed to act on them.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 July 2024. It confirmed that it visited the property on 15 July 2024 to determine what work it needed to do and how best to proceed. It found works which it needed to complete and apologised for the frustration that it caused through delays in completing the works. It also apologised that it gave conflicting information on what work it needed to complete. It further apologised that it was not until it attended following her stage 1 complaint that it put all the necessary actions in place to resolve her concerns. It said it upheld her stage 2 complaint.
The resident explained to us that some of the repairs which it identified following her stage 1 complaint remained ongoing. Following an independent damp survey inspection in May 2024, it found that it needed to do major work that required professionals. The landlord did not have a date when work would start as the project had not developed. Since the stage 2 response it had finished work to the roof.
The resident explained to us on 29 April 2025 that the issue remains ongoing within her property and the landlord has completed a further damp inspection on 22 January 2025. This informed the need for a further mould wash. She said she had been chasing monthly and still waiting for it to allocate the job. She explained she also had another property survey completed on 3 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about the impact of her living conditions on hers and her family’s health. She specifically attributes the situation to the diagnosis of her autoimmune condition. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we cannot determine causation or liability for such issues. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The courts, or a personal injury claim are better suited to deal with such issues as they can consider expert evidence and make legally binding determinations. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice around this issue.
The resident further raised concerns about the landlord breaching housing legislation. She specifically mentioned the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We cannot decide about breaches of legislation. This is because such determinations require a legally binding decision which falls within the jurisdiction of the courts. As such the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice around this.
The resident also raised concerns in relation to her Right To Buy (RTB). She explained she did not buy her property due to the damp and mould issues and would like the landlord to compensate her. This issue did not form part of the complaint brought to the landlord. There is also no evidence that it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Our scheme states that we cannot consider issues which have not exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. As such we cannot consider this matter within this investigation.
We acknowledge that the resident has said that the issues have been ongoing for 10 years. She also said wanted the landlord to compensate her for all the time she lived with the damp and mould and other disrepair issues. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2023 onwards. Our scheme says that we may only consider matters which a resident brought to the landlord’s attention usually within 12 months of them occurring.
This is because we expect residents to bring matters to the landlord’s and our attention while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As such we cannot consider the 10 years reported by the resident. We may however mention other dates outside of the 12 month period for context.
The resident has explained that the issue remains ongoing in her property. The landlord completed an inspection in January 2025 and a further survey in April 2025. We are unable to consider this as part of our investigation. While the survey is in response to damp and mould, it is unclear if this relates to the issues complained of originally by the resident, or they are a new occurrence of damp and mould following the works it identified in its stage 2 response which the landlord completed in October 2024.
As such, we must give the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she may want to address this directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint. For the purposes of this investigation, we shall consider between June 2023 and 4 October 2024. We may however mention this for context purposes only.

Damp and mould and associated works

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 specifically says that landlords must complete repairs in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord’s tenancy conditions also echo this. Its tenancy handbook says that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete urgent within three days and small non urgent repairs within 25 days. It does not provide a timescale for large non urgent repairs/ planned works and provides damp proof course works as an example of these.
The landlord acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns. As part of its complaint response, it arranged a survey and identified works needed to rectify the situation. It also appropriately explained the process required for her to apply for a move. However, it did not take robust action and was often reactive rather than proactive. Despite acknowledging its failings, it did not consider if it should offer compensation and this was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what we expect from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It recommends that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. It also says that where a landlord may need to carry out significant works, it should consider whether it should move the resident from the property at an early stage. The landlord has not shown that it took such an approach in this instance.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould since at least 2 February 2023, as the repair records show it raised works on this date. It raised further works in March, May, July, and December 2023 around reoccurring issues of damp and mould. There was then a gap of around 5 months in which its records do not detail any information around damp and mould, and it then completed a survey in May 2024.
Whilst it did complete works to address the damp and mould such as mould washes to various areas of the property, it has not shown that it investigated the root cause of the issue. She explained in her complaint that she repeatedly reported the issue. The landlord’s records however do not detail any instances of contact from the resident. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping as it should be able to provide robust records to demonstrate contact between it and residents. The only evidence provided of the resident’s report is the telephone call detailed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint.
However, it was aware of the reoccurring issue as detailed by its repair records. As such it would have been reasonable for it to investigate what led to the issue reoccurring and what action it needed to take to permanently resolve the matter.
The resident told the landlord in her complaint that she now had a vulnerability to the damp and mould in the property and the impact of her medication on her immune system. It appropriately explored a permanent resolution to the matter in the form of a housing transfer as explained in its stage 1 response. The evidence, however, suggests this was only after she suggested this during a call on 4 July 2024. The landlord has not shown that it ever considered whether it was suitable for her to remain in the property given the length of time the issue was ongoing prior to this.
The landlord has also has not shown that it was proactive in following up with the resident around this. Nor has it shown that it considered if it could employ a temporary solution, such as a temporary move whilst it addressed the issues in the property. Whilst it appropriately told her that she needed to fill in the necessary forms around the housing move, explained the banding system, and said it would ask her housing officer to contact her, it has not shown that it followed through on this approach. Its actions around the resident’s concerns were inappropriate.
The resident also said to the landlord that a decent homes survey found a category 1 hazard at her property. It provided us with a spreadsheet dated 10 May 2024 which identified concerns with the property which we discuss later in the report. This, however, does not mention any concerns around a category 1 hazard. It also provided a copy of another inspection dated 15 July 2024. This inspection identified that there was 0.25 to 1 metre square of mould in 2 bedrooms, the bathroom, and the kitchen. It also said that it calculated the category of the property as category 1 hazard.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating system says that damp and mould are category 1 hazards. This means that the landlord potentially had the resident living in a property with a potential category 1 hazard for a substantial amount of time. However, it is important to note that it identified this in July 2024. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware that the issue was a category 1 hazard earlier. We would however have expected it to complete the necessary assessments far earlier than it did. It has not shown that it did and this was unreasonable.
The landlord also completed a survey on 10 May 2024 where the resident reported the surveyor told her the property was a category 1 hazard. While we have seen no evidence of this, this was an opportunity for it to complete the necessary assessment. This is especially important as the resident told it that she had children in the property. Evidence suggests that damp and mould are especially harmful to children under the age of 14.
Once it however became aware of the category 1 hazard, it has not shown that it took prompt action to address the situation. This is because the resident has explained the issue remains ongoing. The failure to take prompt action, delay in completing the assessment, and considering any potential vulnerabilities to health at the earliest opportunity, such as February 2023 and later were inappropriate.
Given that the landlord found the property potentially had a category 1 hazard, we would expect it to consider if it remained habitable and suitable for the resident. Especially considering it was aware of the reported impact on health and vulnerabilities. It has not shown that it considered this and this was unreasonable.
The landlord had identified through a survey that it needed to complete works to the property to address the damp and mould on 10 May 2024. It has not provided us with a copy of the survey but instead provided a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet says it found:
1. No membrane in the loft behind the roof tiles.
2. Attention needed to the mortar and flaunching.
3. The timber facia and soffit needed replacing.
4. The bay rod needed insulating and re-felting.
5. The gable needed repointing.
6. The old UPVC windows were just in working order.
7. Damp/ mould had destroyed the base unit backs, and a musty smell became present when opening the cupboard doors.
8. The bathroom was in poor condition due to mould.
9. There was no membrane to the roof covering, the old insulation was not to spec, and the loft had personal items stored inside.
10. Inadequate ventilation.
11. Signs of damp in the kitchen “l room, DWC, H/S/L” 3 bedrooms, bathroom, on ceilings and walls.
We would have expected it to take prompt action in line with the tenancy conditions, Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and LTA 1985. This is because the extent of works identified, and the fact the damp and mould affected almost every room in the property. As such it needed to take prompt action to address the issue and consider the impact on the household. Its records do not show that it raised any works or took necessary action until July 2024, almost 2 months later and this was unreasonable and not in keeping with the tenancy conditions or LTA 1985. The resident has also explained to us that the matter remains ongoing. This means it potentially left the resident living with the matter for longer than was necessary.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it arranged an inspection on 15 July 2024. The inspection identified works for the landlord to complete. It explained these in its stage 2 response. These were to:
1. Carry out a full “DPC treatment” to the external and internal walls and it made an appointment for 30 September 2024 to do the works over 2 days.
2. Seal the existing bath, wash hand basin, and install UPVC quadrant. It appointed a job for both for 7 August 2024.
3. Renew the downstairs radiator and it made an appointment for 19 August 2024.
4. Remove the kitchen for the “DPC” on 30 September 2024 and would refit it on 3 October 2024.
It said since its stage 1 response it had completed the following works to:
1. Have the drain crew attend to check if the drain to the rear of the property was in use or redundant.
2. Install a humidistat extractor fan to the kitchen (it was identified that the fan did not need replacing, but the existing fan was adapted so she could use it without climbing on the worktop)
3. Complete a fungi wash to downstairs toilet.
4. Complete a full fungi wash to rear lobby by rear door.
5. Complete a full fungi wash and decorating to the bathroom.
6. Carry out a full heat loss survey to the existing central heating.
7. Install a stadium air vent to the second rear bedroom.
Its repair records show that it completed these jobs between 10 July 2024 and 29 July 2024. It also completed the works to the bath, hand basin and UPVC quadrant on 7 August 2024. It replaced the downstairs radiator on 19 August 2024, it carried out “DPC” treatment to the kitchen and rear of the property on 3 September 2024 and renewed the kitchen units on 4 October 2024.
While it appropriately completed the identified works in its responses, it left the resident living with the issues for longer than was necessary and this was unreasonable. It should not have taken the resident complaining for it to take the necessary action to identify and raise the necessary works.
In summary, the landlord has not shown that it looked to investigate or address the root cause of the damp and mould for over a year. Despite the resident informing it that the situation affected both hers and her family’s health, it has not shown that it considered whether the property remained appropriate and habitable. It left them potentially exposed to a potential category 1 hazard. It found in its survey in May 2024 that it needed to complete works to address the issue, but did not raise them until July 2024, 2 months after its inspection.
It said it would complete further works in its stage 2 response, and despite some minor delays completed these in a reasonable timeframe. Based on this we find that there was maladministration.
The landlord told us that it did not have a compensation policy. As such we have used our remedies guidance to award compensation. The evidence supports that the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she had to stayed in the property with the damp and mould issues. This led to her belief that the damp and mould led to hers and her family’s health concerns. She also believed it affected her ability to use her medication and manage her conditions.
The resident also took the time to repeatedly raise the issues with the landlord. As such, its actions were lacking in resolving the situation, leading to avoidable delays, distress, and inconvenience. Despite acknowledging failings in its approach and trying to remedy the situation by arranging surveys, and raising the necessary works, its actions did not go far enough to put things right. This is because it failed to consider whether it needed to compensate the resident around the delays, distress, and inconvenience caused to her. Based on this, and in line with our remedies guidance, we order that the landlord pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord has also not shown that it considered the impact of the situation on the resident’s ability to appropriately enjoy the property due to the ongoing issues. She repeatedly raised the issue, and it took no robust action to address the root cause of this issue. She has also identified that the issue remains ongoing. We order that the landlord pay the resident a compensation amount based on approximately 10% of the weekly rent during the periods of 21 June 2023 to 4 October 2024. We have awarded compensation until this date as the repairs appeared to remain outstanding until this time.
We started the calculation on 21 June 2023 as we consider it fair for the landlord to have had an opportunity to resolve the matter following the resident’s reports. This amounts to £611.84 and this is not a rent refund, or an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. This is in addition to the awarded compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided its responses at all stages within the necessary timeframes and this was appropriate. However, there was a failing in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident raised several issues with the landlord. Some of them it appropriately responded to, others it did not. For example, it did not respond to the fact that she said she told it about her concerns relating to the impact of the damp and mould with hers and her family’s health. It also failed to respond to her concerns that her property was a category 1 hazard, and the length of time she had reported the issue.
This was inappropriate and raises concerns with the landlord’s investigation into the complaint. This is because we would expect a landlord to address such issues and explain how it addressed them. It has not shown that it did, and this was unreasonable. Based on this we find that there was a service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,167.33 broken down as:
  1. £717.33 for the failure to consider the resident’s ability to enjoy the property due to the ongoing issues.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings and failure to consider the household’s vulnerabilities.
  3. £50 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide a schedule of works with predicted timeframes for completion of any works needed to address any issues of damp and mould identified following its inspection/ survey in April 2025. If damp and mould remain present in the property, it must understand any risks to the household and set out how it will mitigate these risks. This must include consideration of if it is reasonable for the resident and her family to remain in the property. It must provide a copy of its findings and schedule of works to both the resident and Ombudsman.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.