Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202212984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212984

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

30 January 2024

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 response to resident’s reports about the condition of:
1. The plastering in the property.
2. The windows, the roof, and the property after a boiler installation.
3. The garden paths and gate.
The resident’s report of suffering an injury at the property.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 will not be investigated.
One of the resident’s complaints was that she had suffered an injury after contracts left materials on the property and she tripped over them.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The complaint related to actions of a contractor at the resident’s property. The question of liability is a legal issue. While the Ombudsman has regard for whether the landlord failed to comply with any relevant legal obligations, it does not make determinations in law and it does not have the expertise to consider issues of negligence, including personal injury.
However, there was no evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident explaining to her how she should progress her claim, whether through its insurers or that it made enquiries to the contractors or indeed that it responded in any way and this will be addressed in the complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident was the assured tenant of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident viewed the property on 15 September 2021 and the tenancy began on 20 September 2021. The resident and her children did not move in for the period of the complaint, which she said was due to the reported condition of the property.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide its repairs policy but the current handbook provided the following timescales for repairs (The landlord has stated that the timescales applied in 2021):
1. 3 working days for urgent repairs which included glass replacement where security was affected, leaking pipework and leading roofs.
2. 25 working days for “small” non-urgent repairs.
3. The handbook did not have a timescale for “large” non-urgent repairs “planned” such as fencing, renewals of guttering and plastering .
Under the landlord’s void policy (empty homes standard), the landlord would check the property was safe and secure, carry out electrical and gas safety checks, and check that installations for services were in good working order. A new tenant redecorating their new home could raise issues such as plastering repairs once the walls had been stripped. It provided advice about stripping wallpaper. It stated that a resident could contact the relevant landlord team to report certain repairs, such as damaged plastering after stripping walls up to four weeks from the start date of the tenancy.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure. At the time of the complaints, its respective timescales for responding were within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 28 working days at Stage 2.

Chronology

The landlord’s records show that a fairly significant amount of works were carried out during the void period in August 2021 to 20 September 2021. They included, in terms of what is relevant to the complaint, a repair to the gate, renewal of garden paving, removal of wall fixtures, filling plaster cracks and holes, stripping and preparing walls and ceiling and a report on the condition of the plaster in living room. The works were marked as completed on 17 August 2021, except repairs to the windows including the restrictor, which were marked as completed on 8 September 2021. Plastering was marked as completed on 6 September 2021 and 10 September 2021. The landlord certified the works were completed on 13 September 2021.
On 27 September 2021, contractors of the landlord installed a new boiler.
On 12 October 2021, the resident made a complaint that the landlord proposed be treated as a report. The reports included that rubble had been left on the property, there was a crack through a window but the window was secure, and several rooms were affected by wall and ceiling cracks. An inspection had previously been raised for 23 November 2021 in relation to one room. The resident requested that it be arranged sooner. The landlord took steps to arrange this.
On 18 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. The resident had stripped the wallpaper off and found that the plastering/bonding had come away from the walls and ceilings in large quantities in several areas of different rooms. There was a large crack on both side of the bathroom wall.
2. There was no lintel above the bathroom door. The brickwork was loose and structurally unsafe. She was particularly concerned about this being a risk to her children.
3. She attached photographs.
4. She was paying rent but was unable to occupy the property.
5. While she was happy that the landlord had fitted a new boiler, the heating contractors had left boxing in place, a void in the floor, with potentially live electrical cables and pipe work “sticking out”, including a sharp-edged copper pipe. She had paid to remove the boxing.
6. There were a number of other outstanding defects which had been reported but were yet to be actioned.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord wrote that lintels were not necessary as they were not load–bearing walls. The walls/ door opening were made from studding and plasterboard subsequently plastered. There was a tendency for cracks to occur as plaster was flexible it tends to crack. It had scheduled plastering works to remedy this situation.
The resident replied on the same day. She was able to identify the difference between stud walls and brick/block walls. The wall in question was not a stud wall. It required an inspection. She provided photographs. She asked what the next steps would be.
The landlord wrote on 8 November 2021 that it had raised an inspection for the door. It did not consider the wall was in danger of falling down. The appointment was raised for 13 December 2021 when the surveyor would inspect all the issues.
On 9 November 2021, the resident wrote that the landlord’s last email had left her “at breaking point”. She had concluded that the landlord would “never repair this property”. She was financially unable to carry out the repairs so she asked to terminate her tenancy on condition of being reimbursed for the expenses she had incurred “as a direct result of the landlord’s inactions” and reinstate her bidding position. She had limited funds for flooring/decoration and basic essentials and had incurred costs trying to make the property in “a liveable condition”. The plastering work, garden clearance and window repair was all part of the agreement for accepting the property. The landlord had repaired a broken window after 2 months. The works on the central heating system were not finished. The property was in a worst state than when the tenancy began. She had been told that the delays were due to staff shortages. She had suggested she arranged for the works to be carried out and she be reimbursed. Her personal circumstances were difficult and this was making her burden heavier. She had been chasing this for 2 months.
On 17 November 2023, the resident reported a leak from the main roof valley at the rear of the property into the rear bedroom and was causing water damage. Roofers attended on 18 November 2021 and carried out a repair.
On 19 November 2021, a job was raised to repair the crack to the bathroom wall.
On 25 November 2021 the landlord informed the resident there were backlogs in repairs.
On 21 December 2021, the landlord arranged an appointment for plastering works on 6 January 2022.
On 23 December 2021, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She had already written and spoken to the landlord a number of times and was yet “to achieve any results”.
2. She referred to the items left by the heating contractor. The landlord had not attended to make good. She had paid someone to remove the cupboard however the pipework and electrical work were outstanding.
3. She stated it was not a tenant’s responsibility to carry out such major repairs.
4. There were water marks in the ceiling which indicated that the roof was leaking at two different ends of the house. She had reported this on 12 October 2021. The landlord had booked in a job to investigate on 23 November 2021. She was unwilling to move in until the landlord carried out an inspection to assess the risk.
5. As a result of her email of 9 November 2021, the landlord arranged an inspection and agreed the property was “in a terrible condition” and it was “bad enough to warrant” a decant. It arranged an inspection for 12 November 2021. They were reluctant to inspect and survey the property as they were “disgusted” by the state of it. They were unhappy with the cracks, plaster, the overall finish, the garden/gate repairs and the electrics. They asked if she had somewhere to stay while the repairs were carried out. They wanted to reattend before raising works with the voids’ surveyor and electrical management as they felt this should have been addressed during the void period. The resident was to hold off doing any decorating. The landlord offered an appointment on 16 November 2021. She heard nothing further. She chased the landlord. The landlord had stated the planners would “get this booked in”. This had been ongoing for over 2 months. She felt “drained physically and emotionally”, “anxious”, “low and depressed” and had suffered inconvenience.
6. She had a job “carded” on 23 November 2021. She contacted the landlord. She spoke to 3 different advisors who provided different information. She contacted the landlord on 25 November 2021 and was told a job raised only addressed the outstanding works in the bathroom. It was booked for between then and March 2022.
7. She attended the landlord’s office on 30 November 2021. The landlord informed her that a job had been raised to address the plaster work in the 2 bedrooms, hallway, landing, stairs, and bathroom. This did not include the living room ceiling. The landlord had inspected the roof but there was no outcome. The landlord had since emailed her to advise that no further works were required on the roof. There were damp patches on two of the bedroom ceilings “clearly indicating” that there was a leak. She queried how it could inspect the roof without ensuring it inspected the correct areas.
8. There were other issues. The voids team had contacted her on 18 November 2021 to attend that day to review the outstanding works. She had required more notice. They said they would call back with an appointment but had not done so.
9. There were no restrictors on the bedroom windows.
10. The guttering outside was not connected which could result in further damp issues.
11. The new garden gate fitted during the voids period could not be operated without excessive force. There were screws “sticking out” the top, indicating the work was incomplete.
12. The climb into the house was very high which was a safety concern in relation to her young children. The slabs along the front path were unstable.
13. A bedroom window was very loose.
14. She would withhold rent. She wanted her utilities and council tax reimbursed and compensation for inconvenience.
15. She wanted all communication to be in writing.
On 6 January 2022, the resident wrote that the contractors for the plastering had attended that day and advised that they would not be plastering the living room ceiling. She asked this to be raised urgently to avoid delays.
The resident made a further report on 11 January 2022 regarding the roof. Roofers attended on 14 January 2022 and checked the loft space. According to the landlord’s repair records, it looked “ok”.
On 14 January 2022, the resident wrote as follows:
1. She referred to an appointment that morning. The surveyor inspected the leaking roof. He gained access as one of their tradesmen were working at the property. He was unable to locate a leak. She felt this was because the plasterers removed and reboarded the area in question. She attached a photograph taken on a dry day.
2. She was awaiting a response in relation to the living room ceiling.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows: The letter was dated 17 January 2022. According to the resident, the complaint was posted to her on 24 January 2022. She provided a photograph of the envelope.
1. Contractors would attend on 26 January 2022 to remove the protruding pipework and wiring in the rear bedroom and replace/repair any floorboards within that area.
2. The gate had since been eased and adjusted.
3. An appointment has been arranged for 24 January 2022 to attend to the restricted window and the loose window.
4. The contractors were to complete the plastering works by 21 January 2022, and address the lintel as well.
5. The resident had arranged to board the living room ceiling.
6. In relation to the water marks in the ceiling, a contractor attended on 14 January 2022 to check the loft space and confirmed all was “ok”.
7. The guttering would be re-fixed on 20 January 2022.
8. The resident was invited to book an appointment regarding the steps to the house and the unstable slabs.
9. It apologised for any inconvenience.
On 22 January 2022 the resident replied as follows:
1. She was concerned about the level of workmanship.
2. The works were being carried out piecemeal. Bit of boarding here, bit of skimming, bit of bare wall all in one room. It lacked organisation.
3. There was no communication.
4. She was told the job would take 2 weeks. This had been exceeded the time and no one has updated her with a completion date.
5. She asked that the contractors not interfere with her possessions and those of her own tradesperson. Contractors had damaged the tradesperson’s spirit level.
6. Skirting boards had been fixed to wet plaster.
7. Lights were left on overnight in the property. It needed to make its own arrangements to top up the meter.
She also wrote the next day that she had tripped on plasterboard scraps was left scattered over the walkway and suffered an injury. After the incident, the contractors placed a sign on the front door stating “Warning! Construction Site! Keep Out” without agreeing this with her. She attached a photograph.
The clearing of the property after the boiler installation was carried out on 26 January 2022.
The resident wrote on 10 March 2022 as follows:
1. She asked to escalate the complaint.
2. The Stage 1 response had not addressed all her points.
3. The complaint was closed before all works were completed. The plastering had not been completed. They had posted the keys through the letterbox leaving her uncertain as to the position on the works. She had carried out plastering work on the living room ceiling despite it not being her contractual responsibility. She wanted reimbursement.
4. The leak had not been repaired. The internal brick wall was wet indicating there was still a leak. She had provided photographs.
5. She worked full time and was a single mother. Appointments were difficult to manage.
There was an internal email exchange on 15 March 2022 as follows:
1. The resident reported issues with the path and step at the front of her property. The landlord raised a job but the only appointment available was for 10 May 2022 which the resident could not do and was requesting a Monday appointment.
2. The resident did not need to be at home to carry out the visit as the job was external and at the front.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord carried out a “thorough check”. All works that were ordered had been completed apart from removing/replacing a radiator and fit caulking to the top of the skirting, plaster above bathroom door frame, a small area under the hall radiator and install UPVC liner to the front. The works were booked in for 28 March 2022
The resident wrote again on 30 March 2022. The landlord’s operative had attended that morning to repair only two windows. They rescheduled the job to 27 April 2022. She had made arrangements to accommodate the visit which had “yet again turned out to be a waste of time”. It had already been pushed back with no prior warning or update. She was told that it would be a messy job so she had to reschedule fitting carpet and flooring.
According to an internal email of 17 May 2022, the resident had confirmed that the repair works were completed but she was awaiting a response to her complaint.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It referred to her complaint received on 7 June 2022. It would normally visit the property but the resident did not want a visit. Its contractor had difficulties in gaining access to the property in December 2021 and 5 January 2022. The plastering works commenced on 10 January 2022. “Some minor remedial works” had not been completed from the original works order. This work was arranged and completed on the 28 March 2022. It believed all the repairs were now complete to a satisfactory standard. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience.
The resident wrote on 28 June 2022 as follows:
1. She had requested escalation of her complaint on 10 March 2022, not 7 June 2022. Her request had not been acknowledged. She had never failed to accommodate any scheduled appointments, even though it was not easy, given her circumstances.
2. She had not stated that she did not want anyone to visit the property.
3. The plastering took 10 weeks to complete. The landlord had not addressed the delays, or her injury. It contradicted its statement that it treated complaints “very seriously as customer care is high priority and issues of this nature (were) investigated thoroughly”.

Assessment and findings

The plastering works

The resident raised the issue about the plastering of the walls and the absence of a door lintel on 12 October 2021. The works were completed in January 2022, with some final works completed at the end of March 2022. Given the nature of the works that the landlord carried out during the void, the issue only emerging after the resident had stripped the wallpaper, it was reasonable that the issue was not identified until after the resident moved in. The Ombudsman does not consider it was unreasonable of the resident to strip all the walls at the same time, given the policy limited the period within which the landlord would rectify any plastering issues. Given the landlord’s policy, the resident had taken the precaution of stripping the wallpaper early in the tenancy.
The landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its policy to rectify the issue and to raise the works promptly. It was reasonable the works were classed as decorative works. However, there were delays, and a lack of clear communication and updates, in particular regarding the living room ceiling. The landlord explained there were delays due to the pandemic. Such delays affected repairs across the housing sector, due to staff and materials shortages. However, the Ombudsman would expect clearer communication and updates.
While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about safety, there was no evidence that the property was uninhabitable or unsafe during the period. While the resident’s reports of the surveyor’s comments of November 2021 are noted, there was no evidence that a decant was required and in any event, the resident was not residing at the property. While its initial dismissal of her concerns about the lintel was unreasonable and unsympathetic, it was shortlived and rectified by bringing forward the inspection date.
There was a lack of internal record keeping, as indicated by the resident being given contradictory information and the landlord not cancelling the original appointment for 23 November 2021 on its system. Nor did the landlord provide this to this Service with its inspection reports. It was unreasonable of the landlord to state that its contractors could not get access on 6 January 2022. The evidence showed she had emailed the landlord that day to confirm she had given access and to raise the issue of the living room ceiling. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
It is noted that the resident paid to board the ceiling and remove fittings however, the evidence showed that the landlord was intending to remedy the plastering the ceiling any event, although its communication was poor in relation to that point.
The landlord offered compensation of £715.84 for the period of 18 October 2021 to 26 January 2022, being half the rent for the period. Given the factors set out above, the Ombudsman considers this was reasonable redress for the delays, inconvenience and lack of communication regarding the condition of the plastering.

The windows, the roof and the property after a boiler installation.

The resident raised the issue of the rubble and mess, including wires and exposed pipes left by the heating contractors on 12 October 2021. The resident paid to remove the boxing cupboard. The landlord did not arrange to remove these items or chase the contractors until January 2022. This was an unreasonable delay which was neither acknowledged nor explained.
The resident raised the issue of the crack in the glass. While unsightly, there was no evidence of an impact on the resident. The window was double glazed and deemed to be safe. The evidence indicated it was repaired by 8 November 2021, some six weeks after the tenancy start date. The further issues with her windows were reported on 23 December 2021 and were arranged for 24 January 2022 but required further visits. It is not clear whether the landlord’s contractors could have better planned the repairs. More concerning, given the safety implications, was the delay to fitting a restrictor on an upstairs window, The evidence indicated that the lack of restrictions was identified during the voids inspection and therefore this should have been rectified at that time rather than in January 2022.
Given the resident was not occupying the property, and the resident may feel that was because of the general condition of the property, there was no direct impact on her. However, she did incur time and trouble in chasing this with the landlord and the inconvenience of repeat visits. On that basis, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the reports about the windows unsatisfactory, given this importance to safety.
The landlord’s contactors attended promptly in response to the resident’s reports about the roof and within its policy timescales in relation to the guttering. On each occasion, either a repair was carried out or the contractor was unable to identify the leak. On one occasion, the lack of conclusive diagnosis appeared to have been due to an area having been boarded over. There was no evidence that the landlord investigated the issue thoroughly or that the leak, or leaks, was remedied once and for all. It is indicated that it was not, in fact, resolved given that in March 2023, the resident informed this Service that the leak was ongoing. Given the number of occasions that the resident reported a leak, there is a concern whether the landlord undertook sufficient investigations.
Given the accumulative effect of the failures, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the windows, the roof, and the property after a boiler installation.

The garden paths and gate.

It was reasonable that the landlord raised the repairs and other repairs on 10 January 2022. However, there was a lengthy delay to May 2022 before the landlord carried out the repairs to the front path. There was no evidence of a significant impact on the resident, and in particular as the issues had been assessed as safe. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in relation to exterior works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was a delay to the first complaint response which the landlord did not acknowledge. The response did not refer to the delays in the works. It was limited a list of works that had been or would be carried out. It did not address whether it or the resident was to have boarded the living room ceiling. There was no evidence of an internal investigation, for example of the resident’s report of the surveyor’s inspection of November 2021. The inspection records were not provided to this Service.
There was a further significant delay to the second stage response. Again, the response did not address the delays, nor did it address the resident’s report of an injury due to the contractors leaving materials at the property, the exterior works or the missing items in her property. The dates it referred to were inaccurate, including the date of escalation. That the works had been carried out six months after the complaint was not a resolution in itself. Overall, the standard of response was unsatisfactory. It gave the resident an impression that her complaint had not been taken seriously. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the plastering in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the windows, the condition of the property after the boiler installation and a leaking roof.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the garden paths and gate.
In the opinion of the Ombudsman, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint in relation the landlord’s response to the resident’s report to her suffering a personal injury at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays to the landlord addressing the plastering in the property. However, while unsightly, there was no evidence that this rendered the property uninhabitable. The Ombudsman’s considered that the landlord’s offer of a rent rebate equivalent to half her rent for a period of 16 weeks was reasonable in the circumstances.
There was no explanation for the delays to installing the missing window restrictor or removing the debris following the boiler installation. While the resident was not in the property, she suffered the inconvenience and frustration of following this up. The evidence indicated that the landlord did not carry out a sufficiently thorough investigation of the leaks to the roof.
While there was a delay in addressing the path, there was no evidence of a significant impact on the resident.
The complaint response comprised of a list of works, did not address a number of points, including delays and the responses were significantly delayed.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £450 consisting as follows:
  1. £300 in relation to the landlord’s failures identified in relation to the windows, the roof, and the property after a boiler installation.
  2. £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should carry out a thorough investigation of the roof by an independent and suitably qualified RICS surveyor in order to identify the source of the leaks and the cause of the water damage.
3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should send a copy of the roof report to the resident and the Ombudsman, together with an action plan with reasonable timescales to carry out any repairs identified by the report.
4. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should carry out a review at senior level of its complaint handling, including considering training to ensure that it adheres to timescales, investigates and addresses issues comprehensively, and ensures that its responses are not limited to a list of works but addresses any delays. A copy of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should review its record keeping given the findings in this report and ensure it sends full records in future investigations by the Ombudsman.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.