Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202425936)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425936

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

23 July 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:
1. The resident’s transfer request.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Repairs, damp and mould.
4. The resident’s report that her bathroom is unsafe.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and she has lived there since 2014. The landlord is aware that the resident has a number of physical and mental health conditions.
The landlord’s records show the resident first reported problems with a neighbour, including issues with their dogs, noise, and items being stolen from her outside storage space on 1 February 2022. The landlord met with the resident in November 2022, where she raised that she felt her concerns were not being listened to. The landlord did not raise or respond to a formal complaint at this time.
On 4 July 2024 the resident wrote to landlord to raise a complaint. She said:
1. there were a number of repairs issues outstanding, including damp and mould
2. she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB
3. she felt the bathroom in the property was unsuitable for her
4. she wanted to be moved to a larger property so friends/family could stay overnight to give her support
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 July 2024, in which it said:
1. it had no outstanding repairs jobs logged for her property – it provided her with a link to report any repairs issues online
2. it had not received any reports of ASB since 28 February 2022, which was resolved on 1 March 2022 – it provided her with a link to report ASB issues online
3. it had explained its allocations policy to her – it cannot rehouse single people from flats into houses due to larger families on its waiting list
4. it had received her application for medical priority on 3 July 2024 and a panel would consider this application in due course
5. her social worker had referred her to the aids and adaptations service for assistance with bathing aids
On 3 September 2024 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy the landlord had declined her request for medical priority for a transfer. She was also unhappy about a safe and well visit that took place in August 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 September 2024, in which it said:
1. its decision not to award her housing priority sat outside the complaints process – it had been referred for a formal review by an independent panel
2. local Police undertook a safe and well check in August 2023 following concerns they received – a support referral was then made to the landlord
3. its stage 1 response was suitable and proportionate
4. a plumber would be attending on 24 September 2024 to complete repairs
On 30 November 2024 the resident contacted us and asked us to investigate the complaint. She said the landlord had taken no action and no issues had been resolved.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.
The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its handling of her transfer request. She was unhappy that it did not grant her medical priority and would not consider transferring her to a larger property.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to look into complaints about the local authority’s housing scheme, its housing allocation, bidding, banding and the housing register. This is because these are processes administered by the local council and fall within the scope of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her transfer request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about her health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has recently told this Service that she feels that the landlord has treated her with bias due to her race, gender and disability. This was not raised as part of her original complaint and therefore has not been investigated in this report. This is because we consider it reasonable for a landlord to have the opportunity to address concerns in the first instance and this has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident should raise this issue directly with the landlord to allow it the opportunity to investigate this, should she wish for it to.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that its approach focuses on prevention, early intervention, diversion, support and enforcement. Any action it takes will be reasonable and proportionate to the type of ASB reported. It says it will:
1. assess the ASB reported to it and take action where appropriate to do so
2. ensure cases are not open longer than is deemed necessary and keep the complainant informed
3. take a victim centred approach and aim to undertake victim vulnerability assessments where it is appropriate to do so
4. respond to complaints about the service in line with its internal complaints process
5. explain its reasons should it choose to take no action
On 24 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for CCTV footage as she said her outhouse had been burgled. We have seen no evidence from that time which states that the resident considered this to be ASB, or that she asked the landlord to investigate the matter.
The resident’s GP wrote a letter to the landlord on 5 January 2022 saying that noise annoyance and abuse from a neighbour was having a detrimental effect on her health. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord received this letter. Its internal notes form 1 February 2022 state that the resident had reported disturbance from an upstairs neighbour, including issues with 2 large dogs. She provided the landlord with a crime reference number for the theft from her outhouse.
At this time, the landlord met with the resident and explained that the noise recordings she had provided could not be used as there was no date, time, or GPS data. It provided her with information about its noise app and carried out a risk assessment, which were reasonable steps for it to take.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord’s notes state that it closed the case as the resident had not used the noise app or provided further evidence. However, the resident said she had been using the app, so the landlord said it would review this.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord reviewed the recordings and advised the resident they did not substantiate her complaint. It said the noise was recorded at reasonable hours of the day, except for one at 5:13am, where only talking and footsteps could be heard. It said it would speak to the neighbour and ask them to be mindful of noise transference, which was reasonable. On 23 March 2022 it visited her and reiterated that the recordings were not evidence of ASB. It told her it would therefore close the case, which was in line with its policy.
The landlord’s internal notes of 7 April 2022 state that it had seen no evidence that the theft from the resident’s outhouse was carried out by anyone living in the block. We have seen no evidence it communicated to the resident that it was not considering this to be something it needed to investigate further. It should have made this position clear to the resident at that time.
On 15 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say she had evidence of ASB, however we have not seen that she provided the landlord with this evidence. She said that parcels had been stolen from outside her flat and rubbish was often left in her storage room. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this email, which was not appropriate.
The resident’s GP wrote another letter to the landlord on 26 September 2022, which the landlord received on 6 October 2022. It said the resident was being significantly impacted by the neighbour making considerable noise. It said she felt this was bullying and was making her feel paranoid. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of this letter or took any action, which was not appropriate.
The landlord’s internal records of 16 November 2022 state that it met with the resident at its office. She told it she felt her complaints about her neighbours were not being listened to. The records do not show that the landlord took any action, such as opening a new ASB case or carrying out a risk assessment, which was not reasonable.
On 24 June 2023, following a safe and well check, the Police emailed the landlord. They said the resident told them she had been experiencing harassment from neighbours and thought the call to the Police had been made to upset her. She told them the harassment had been ongoing for a year and the landlord was aware of it.
On 5 July 2023 the resident’s employer wrote to the landlord to say it supported her request for a transfer. It said she had told it she was experiencing issues in her home that were causing her significant stress. On 6 July 2023 her social worker wrote to the landlord to support her request for a transfer. They said she was being affected by ASB from neighbours and felt unable to leave the property. They also said she was not eating properly as she was not using the kitchen due to it looking out onto the garden area.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it took any action at this time, despite contact from a number of third parties raising concerns about the resident’s welfare. This lack of action from the landlord was not appropriate, and did not demonstrate that it took a victim centred approach as set out in its policy.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 4 July 2024. We have seen no evidence that any further incidents of ASB had been raised since the social worker wrote to the landlord in July 2023. In her complaint she said raised the following issues:
1. a neighbour was monitoring her movements in and out of the property and stealing parcels and items from her storage room
2. a neighbour was leaving rubbish outside her door and throwing it into her storage room
3. a neighbour was having parties and fights through the night
4. a neighbour would ring her buzzer in the early morning and kick her door once inside if she did not let them in
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 July 2024. It said she had not reported any incidents since February 2022, and this had been dealt with at that time. It provided her with a link for her to report any new ASB issues online. Given the time that had passed since her previous report of ASB via other parties in July 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask her to raise any new incidents online. We have not seen any evidence the resident has since reported any further ASB incidents. However, the landlord did not recognise that it had received a number of reports since February 2022 which it had failed to deal with. So, its response was not reasonable or proportionate.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 3 September 2024. In its stage 2 response of 19 September 2024 the landlord said its stage 1 response was proportionate and that it had provided her with advice on how to report any ASB concerns. It again failed to recognise that it had not responded to concerns she had raised during 2022 and 2023, which was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord initially dealt with the resident’s ASB concerns reasonably and in line with its policy. In March 2022 it provided her with the noise app to gather evidence and then clearly explained by the evidence provided did not support any further action at that time.
However, the resident told the landlord on many occasions between July 2022 and July 2023 that she was experiencing ASB, both directly and via third parties. The landlord’s records do not show that it took any actions, or even acknowledged these reports. Its ASB policy says that it should have assessed the ASB reported to it and either taken action, or explained its reasons if it chose not to take action. There is no evidence that it did this. It also failed to undertake a vulnerability assessment despite being repeatedly told that the situation was impacting her mental health.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to her reports of ASB. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind, as well as the resident’s circumstances.
An order has also been made for the landlord to undertake staff training to ensure that its staff are able to identify reports of ASB in order for it to take action in line with its ASB policy. A copy of its training schedule should be provided to this Service.

Repairs, damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy says that resident’s should report repairs online through its portal or via telephone. The landlord’s tenant handbook sets out the following repair priorities and timescales:
1. emergency – complete or make safe within 24 hours
2. urgent – within 3 working days
3. small non-urgent repairs – within 25 working days
4. large non-urgent repairs – no specific timescale
The landlord’s repair records show that various repairs were reported between 20 August 2023 and 19 June 2024. Most of these repairs were carried out within the landlord’s policy timescales. A repair to the smoke alarm was delayed as the resident asked for the appointment to be changed. A repair to the cold tap in the bathroom was also delayed due to 2 no access appointments.
When the resident raised her complaint on 4 July 2024 she told the landlord that there were outstanding repairs, including the tap in the bathroom, leaks in a ceiling, a blocked toilet, damp and mould in the bathroom, the bathroom window which was unable to open and the bedroom door which she said had fallen off. With the exception of the bathroom tap repair, which the landlord had recently raised, we have seen no evidence the resident had reported any of the other issues to it. She had previously raised an issue with the toilet being blocked in January 2024, however the landlord attended to repair this within 24 hours, in line with its policy.
In its stage 1 response of 19 July 2024 the landlord said that it had no outstanding repairs logged and gave her a link to report any new issues. The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident subsequently reported repairs, which the landlord completed in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs, damp and mould. Its records show that it carried out all reported repairs within its policy timescales, with the exception of occasions where delays were outside of its control. There is no record the resident had reported issues raised in her complaint beforehand, so the landlord had not had the opportunity to carry out these repairs.

Bathroom

The first evidence we have seen of the resident reporting that she was having difficulties using the bathroom was in her letter of complaint of 4 July 2024. She told the landlord that there had been an incident on 14 June 2024 where she had a fall in the bath tub while being assisted with personal care.
In its stage 1 response of 19 July 2024 the landlord confirmed that her social worker had referred her to an aids and adaptations service to look into assistance with bathing aids. As this was the first time the landlord had been made aware of this issue, its response was reasonable and proportionate. For this reason, the Ombudsman considers there to have been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report that her bathroom is unsafe.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days of receipt, and will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. When a resident requests escalation the landlord will acknowledge this within 3 working days. It will then send its stage 2 response within 20 working days. At both stages it says it will agree an extension with the resident if required.
The landlord’s internal records from 16 November 2022 said that it had met with the resident at its office. She had said she felt that no one was listening to her complaints about neighbours stealing her parcels and belongings and harassing her. The landlord did not raise a complaint and has told this Service that it instead handled the issues under its ASB process.
It is important to note the difference between an ASB case and a complaint. When a resident tells the landlord that they are experiencing ASB, in the first instance it should deal with this in line with its ASB policy and procedures. However, if a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the way the landlord is handling the ASB case, it should then raise this as a formal complaint, as set out in its ASB policy. It is evident from the landlord’s notes that the resident was unhappy with the way it was dealing with the ASB case, and therefore it should have raised a formal complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2024 to raise a complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 July 2024, which was not line in with its policy. It sent its stage 1 response on 19 July 2024, which was slightly outside the policy timeframe.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 3 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 6 September 2024, in line with its policy. It then sent its stage 2 response on 19 September 2024, also in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Once it had logged a complaint, with the exception of a short delay at stage 1, it handled the complaint in line with its policy.
However, in November 2022 it failed to understand the distinction between an ASB case and a complaint about its handling of an ASB case. It did not raise a complaint despite the resident expressing clear dissatisfaction with its actions.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to raise her complaint in 2022. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her transfer request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs, damp and mould
3. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report that her bathroom is unsafe
4. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £400, broken down as follows:
  1. £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
  2. £100 for complaint handling
2. provide the resident with a written apology from a senior manager, recognising the failings identified in this report
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to undertake staff training to ensure that its staff are able to identify reports of ASB in order for it to take action in line with its ASB policy. A copy of its training schedule should be provided to this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding ASB and repairs issues and the support it can provide her, including discussing any reasonable adjustments she might need.