Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202439378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439378

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

27 August 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 the resident’s reports about:
1. A leak, damp and the subsequent repairs.
2. Power outages in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since January 2005. The property is a terraced house.
On 11 June 2024 the landlord replaced the resident’s fuse box as an inspection had found the old box to be unsafe. On 24 June 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that her property was suffering from damp and mould which she said originated from a leak coming from her neighbour’s property. The landlord attended the same day but was unable to investigate the leak as the neighbour did not allow it access to the property.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s bathroom on 24 July 2024. It found no signs of damp or mould but that there was minor damage to the plasterwork at the rear of the bath. It raised an order for this to be repaired. The landlord carried out another inspection on 26 August 2024 to investigate a reported leak from the neighbour’s property. The inspection recommended that the landlord realign the gutter at rear of the resident’s property and renew the joints.
The resident raised her complaint on 27 August 2024. She said that on 24 June 2024 she noticed bubbling paint and plaster coming away from her bathroom wall. She said she reported this to the landlord and that she believed it was caused by a leak from her neighbour’s property. She said that when the landlord attended her property on 24 July 2024 it told her it would fix the damage to the bathroom as well as the leak next door. However, she said she had not heard anything further from the landlord about the repairs. Within her complaint the resident also referred to instances of anti-social behaviour from her neighbour.
The resident also contacted the landlord on 17 September 2024 to report issues with her electrics. She said that since the landlord had replaced the fuse box she had experienced power outages several times a day. She said engineers had been round to investigate the issue and they had told her the cause was electrical surges from wiring on the street.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024. It said that it spoke to the inspector that attended the resident’s property and they confirmed the damp in her bathroom was caused by the guttering at the back of the property and not next door’s leak. It said it had booked a job to realign the guttering at the rear of the property and renew the joints for 24 September 2024. The landlord also said its electrical team had confirmed they had arranged a visit with the resident to investigate the electrical issues she had reported.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2024. She said:
1. The electrical issues had still not been resolved.
2. The leak in the neighbour’s property had been fixed on 30 August 2024 but the plaster in her bathroom was drying very slowly.
3. The landlord had not made any mention of it addressing the damage caused to her bathroom.
4. To resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to fix the damage done to her property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 November 2024. It said:
1. The works to realign the guttering were completed on 24 September 2024. It said it had arranged an inspection of the damp for 15 November 2024. It also acknowledged that the work on the damage in the bathroom had not been raised properly and as such a reinspection was first required. It said it would carry out this reinspection alongside the inspection of the damp. It confirmed that any remedial works would then be arranged.
2. It confirmed that it had reported the electrical issues to the relevant authority but had not received any feedback from them. It said that as no further issues had been reported it had not taken any further action. However, it said it had arranged a review of the power issues and a report of any remedial works for 14 November 2024.
3. It said it would be investigating the condition of the neighbour’s property and whether it breached the tenancy agreement. It said the resident needed to report any antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the police and the ASB team. It also recommended that the resident keep a log of any incidents of ASB.

The landlord also acknowledged that there had been a delay in it fixing the damage in the bathroom and apologised for this failure.

The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint on 27 April 2025. She said:
1. She still experience power outages most days. She said the landlord had told her it was caused by electrical surges to the property from the wiring on the street.
2. She denied that there were any issues with the guttering at the back of the property.
3. The plasterer had attended 3 weeks before but had only looked at the damp damage above the tiles. She said there was still damp damage under the tiles and bath.
4. It had taken the landlord 2 months from that point to fix next door’s leak and until April 2025 for it to try to fix the damage in her property.
5. She wanted an honest apology from the landlord, compensation, all the damage in her property to be put right and for the neighbour to be ‘dealt with’ adequately.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s failure to resolve all the issues has impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident continues to assert that she reported the leak from the neighbour’s property several years ago and that the damage to her bathroom was caused by that leak. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident reported a leak or damp to the landlord before June 2024. Therefore, this report focuses on the material issue which is the landlord’s response to reports of a leak and associated damp from June until November 2024 (when it issued its stage 2 response).
Within her complaint the resident described ASB from her neighbour and their partner. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the resident had made any reports of ASB prior to her complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord asked the resident to report any instances of ASB to the police and its ASB team. This indicates that the landlord treated the resident’s comments about ASB as a service request due to her having not reported it before. The Ombudsman is also aware that the resident has since raised a separate complaint with the landlord regarding the neighbour’s ASB and has brought that complaint to this Service. As such, this investigation will not comment on the resident’s concerns regarding ASB and these will be dealt with under the resident’s other complaint with us (reference 202514078).

Damp and repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord had completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter, in order to establish the underlying cause of the issues experienced within a property, the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp, and to assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem in order to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
It would be reasonable to expect that any quality inspection of damp and mould should include an assessment of all possible causes of the damp, (leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation) which would involve checking the fabric of the building for faults. This should include the roof, DPC, brickwork, plumbing, external drains/gulleys, rainwater goods as well as the airflow and extraction within the building.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to small, non-urgent repairs (including plaster patches) within 25 working days and urgent repairs within 3 working days and emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy does not provide a timescale for large, non-urgent repairs (which includes damp proof course work).
On 26 June 2024 the resident reported that there were damp marks in her upstairs bathroom. She said she believed these were caused by a leak from her neighbour’s property. The landlord attended on the same day. It spoke to the resident about the damp and took photos of it. This was a reasonable response to the initial report by the resident and it was carried out within the repair policy timescales.
The landlord carried out a damp inspection on 27 July 2024. The records seen say that it found no signs of damp or mould in the bathroom. However, it did note that there was minor damage to the plasterwork at the rear of the bath. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the bathroom following the resident’s reports of damp and it did so within the repair policy timescales.
The landlord carried out a second inspection on 26 August 2024 following further reports of damp from the resident. It has not provided a date for these additional reports. During this inspection it identified the cause of the damp as the gutter at the rear of the property and it raised an order for this to be realigned. While the date of the resident’s further reports has not been provided, the time between the first and second inspection indicates this inspection was carried out within a reasonable timescale.
The records seen show that the landlord completed works to realign the guttering on 24 September 2024. These works were completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
The Ombudsman appreciates that throughout her complaint the resident has said the damp was caused by the leak from the neighbour’s property. However, landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third party evidence to the contrary. In this instance the second assessment found the cause of the leak to be the gutter at the rear of the property. Additionally, an email from the landlord’s contractor dated 17 September 2024 confirmed the fault with the guttering was the cause of the damp patch and not the leak from next door. This email also confirmed that the leak from next door had been resolved.
In her escalation request of 10 October 2024 the resident confirmed that the neighbour’s leak had been fixed on 30 August 2024. However, she said she believed the damp in her bathroom was drying out very slowly. She also said the landlord had not mentioned fixing the internal damage since the July 2024 inspection.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that as the resident was continuing to report issues with damp it would carry out an inspection on 15 November 2024. It also acknowledged and apologised for not having carried out any works to fix the damage to the plaster in the bathroom. It said that this was due to it raising the original order incorrectly. It said that before raising another order it would first need to reinspect the bathroom and it would do so on 15 November 2024. It said it would then arrange a date for any remedial works identified to be completed. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its failure to carry out the repair works. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take steps to address this failing by arranging a reinspection of the damage within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord has not addressed the time and trouble the delay to the repair works caused the resident. This is namely in respect of the resident continuing to report issues with damp in the bathroom after the works in September 2024 and the time it took for the landlord to realise the repair works had not been carried out.
The landlord has not provided a date for when it raised the original repairs order. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to realise the works were outstanding until the resident reported this in October 2024. This indicates poor record keeping and oversight of repairs on the part of the landlord which in turn caused an avoidable delay.
The records seen show that the inspection on 15 November 2024 found that no damp or mould was present but the plaster on the window wall by the bath needed to be replastered. The records also show that the landlord did not carry out the replastering works until around 8 April 2025. This was a significant delay and not in line with its repairs policy timescales. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why the repair works took 5 months to be completed. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can only conclude that such a delay was unreasonable. This delay cannot but have caused the resident avoidable inconvenience and impacted her full enjoyment of the property.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to:
1. Adequately record and monitor the repair works to avoid unnecessary delays.
2. Adequately address the impact of its failings on the resident.
3. Adhere to its repairs policy timescales.
Cumulatively these failures amount to maladministration as they led to a delay in the repairing of the plaster. This in turn caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble as she had to chase the landlord for these works to be done.
In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and to directly pay the resident £200 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have a permanent impact on the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
Additionally, on 5 August 2025 the resident told this Service that the bricks and plaster in her bathroom are still damp. In light of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out a full damp and mould inspection of the bathroom, provide this Service and the resident with a copy of the report and provide a timed schedule of works for any remedial works identified.

The electrics

On 11 June 2024 the landlord replaced the resident’s fuse box with a new one. The records seen say the landlord replaced the fuse box in order to comply with ‘current regulations’.
The resident first reported having issues with her electricity on 17 September 2024. She said that since the installation of the new fuse box she had experienced power outages several times a day and it would remain off for up to an hour. She also said that she had had higher electricity costs since the landlord installed the new fuse box.
In its stage 1 response dated 20 September 2024 the landlord said that following the resident’s report of issues with the electrics it had arranged an appointment with her for this to be checked. This was a reasonable response to her concerns because she had not previously reported this issue and the landlord had not yet had the opportunity to investigate.
The records seen indicate that the landlord inspected the electrics on 20 September 2024. This was an appropriate response to the issues reported by the resident and the inspection was carried out within a reasonable timescale. The repair notes say it found the AFDDs (arc fault detection device) kept tripping together and the voltage level fluctuated. The notes also confirm that the engineer took a video of the fault and sent it to the appropriate person. The Ombudsman has noted that the repair logs do not mention any identified remedial works to fix the electrical issues.
The resident said she was still experiencing issues with the electrics in her escalation request dated 10 October 2024. The landlord’s records, dated 4 and 7 November 2024, say that during the previous inspection it had taken video evidence that the national electrical authority (NEA) was the source of the electrical fault. It confirmed that it had already reported the electrical issues to the NEA but it had not yet received a response. It also said that it was unaware of any repairs it needed to carry out. In spite of this, on 5 November 2024 the landlord arranged a further inspection with the resident for 8 November 2024. In an email dated 7 November 2024, the landlord also informed her about how she could raise a complaint with the NEA herself about the issues.
It was appropriate for the landlord to report the electrical issues to the NEA after its inspection found the fault lay with it rather than the property’s electrics or the new fuse box. It was also reasonable for it to inform the resident about how she could make a complaint to the NEA.
The records provided show that the resident contacted the landlord and rescheduled the inspection planned for the 8 November to the 14 November 2024. The landlord’s inspection notes say that it found the same problems as it did during the first inspection.
When the resident brought her complaint to this Service she confirmed that she was still experiencing power outages most days and the landlord had told her it was caused by power surges from the wiring on the street.
The Ombudsman appreciates the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by regular power outages. However, in this instance, the evidence seen indicates that the cause of the outages is coming from outside of the property and beyond the electrical infrastructure that the landlord was responsible for or in a position to affect a direct repair upon. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately by inspecting the fuse box and reporting the issues found to the NEA.
Based on all the information provided, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the residents reports of electrical issues.
On 15 August 2025 the landlord provided evidence which showed that on 11 August 2025 it spoke to the NEA regarding the reported electrical issues. They confirmed they had attended in November 2024 and installed a monitoring device for 2 weeks. It told the landlord that the readings it received were ‘borderline’ and it removed the device after 2 weeks. It also told the landlord that should the resident continue experiencing issues then she should contact the NEA directly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of power outages in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
2. Directly pay the resident £200 for its handling of her reports of damp and the subsequent repairs.
3. Carry out a full damp and mould inspection of the bathroom. The landlord must then provide this Service and the resident with a copy of the inspection report along with a timed schedule of works for any remedial works identified. Any identified works must be completed within a period no longer than 8 weeks from the date of this Services report.
The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.