Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202319161)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319161

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

17 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:

a.     The condition of the property at letting.

b.     The grounds maintenance.

c.      Fire safety in communal areas.

d.     Her request for permission to install a shower.

e.     Its complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  3. In this instance part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman involves the landlord’s response to her request to install her own shower. However, this did not form part of the original complaint.
  4. As such, in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be allowed to install her own shower is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 22 May 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat.
  2. On 22 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said she had been unable to move into the property and raised several concerns, including:

a.     The toilet leaking after being flushed and the pipes not being boxed in.

b.     Her belief that the area for the fridge freezer was too small.

c.      The landlord told her there was asbestos and lead paint in the kitchen. She asked the landlord for an asbestos report.

d.     There was only a bath, no shower, and the tiling around the bath was only 2 tiles high. She believed this would cause issues in future.

e.     That the communal garden was overgrown. She asked for a copy of the maintenance schedule.

f.        Fire safety concerns with the entrance hall as she believed the entrance door had a large gap between it and the floor. She also believed that the carpet was not fire retardant.

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. It said that:

a.     It would attend to fix the toilet and box in the pipes once she had moved in.

b.     It could adjust the area for the fridge freezer once she had moved in. It also provided a copy of the asbestos report.

c.      There was no shower when she viewed the property and the tiling around the bath was the standard height.

d.     The grounds maintenance took place every 4 to 5 weeks.

e.     It had reported her fire safety concerns to the repairs team.

  1. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 June 2023. She raised several points, including:

a.     The landlord had not responded to her complaint within its policy timescales. It said she raised the complaint on 30 May 2023 but she said she actually raised it on 22 May 2023.

b.     Its response confirmed that it had not carried out any void works relating to the toilet and fridge space.

c.      She did not believe the landlord carried out the grounds maintenance every 4 to 5 weeks. She said she first visited the property in April 2023 and then again in May 2023, and said the garden was in the same condition.

d.     If the landlord was confident the communal carpet met fire regulation standards, she wanted to see a copy of the report which supported that.

  1. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 June 2023. It said that:

a.     It had logged the complaint and passed to an investigator on 30 May 2023. It apologised that the wording of the previous response did not make this clear.

b.     It had fixed the toilet on 28 June 2023. It also said the boxing of the pipes was not something it would do as part of the void works but it could look into it.

c.      Following the visit on 28 June 2023, the voids team had confirmed the fridge area was not too small but a radiator was preventing the door opening fully. It said it was looking into having this radiator relocated.

d.     It had mowed the garden on 11 April 2023 and a couple of weeks before the date of the stage 2 response. It also said the mowing would take place again in 2 weeks’ time and provided a link to the mowing schedule.

e.     The most recent fire risk assessment took place on 30 September 2022 and did not identify any risk associated with the communal carpet.

  1. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 31 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Condition of the property

  1. The resident has raised several different elements as part of this aspect of the complaint. As such, we have considered each one separately.

The toilet

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out urgent repairs, which includes leaking pipework or waste pipes, within 3 working days. Its lettable standard policy also says that while the property is empty it will ensure the toilet ‘will flush and be free from leaks’.
  2. As part of her complaint the resident said that she did not believe the property was fit for human habitation for a variety of reasons. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make a formal finding as to whether or not the property was fit for human habitation, as such a finding can only be made by the courts. We also cannot award damages in the way a court can when a property is found to be unfit for human habitation or in a state of disrepair. We can, however, award compensation for any distress or inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the way the landlord handled her reports.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would fix the toilet leak once the resident had moved in. Later, in its stage 2 response, it apologised that it had not fixed the leaking toilet while the property was empty. It said that sometimes things are missed during the void works.
  4. We appreciate that mistakes happen and landlords can miss things during the void works. However, the landlord has not provided any explanation as to why it was unable to fix the leaking toilet before the resident moved in. Without such an explanation, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that this was an appropriate response. Especially because the landlord was aware of the issues the resident was having with accessing the property to move in. Landlords should be proactive in seeking to resolve issues that are brought to their attention. In this instance, the landlord waited until the resident moved in before fixing the toilet. As a result there was an unnecessary delay and the toilet was not fixed until 28 June 2023, over a month after she had first reported the issue. This was not in line with the landlord’s lettable standard policy, which says that toilets will flush and be free from leaks. This cannot but have caused the resident avoidable inconvenience as she had to move into a property with a toilet that leaked when it was flushed.

The fridge space

  1. The landlord inspected the fridge space on 28 June 2023. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the standard space for a fridge is 60cm. During its inspection the landlord found that the fridge space was 67cm. As such, it found that the area was not too small. However, it identified that it could relocate the radiator to allow the fridge door to open fully. It explained this to the resident in its stage 2 response and confirmed that it was in the process of resolving this issue. While the landlord did not provide a timescale for these works, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge that it could improve the fridge space and take steps to do so. The landlord was not required to increase the fridge space but chose to do so anyway. It has not confirmed when these works took place, but based on the evidence provided it has since moved the radiator.

The bathroom

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about there only being a bath and the height of the tiling. It confirmed there had never been a shower in the property and the tiling was the standard height.
  2. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows the resident inspected the property in April 2023. As such, she was aware that the property did not have a shower when she accepted it. The landlord had no obligation to install a shower before the resident moved in. It inspected the tiling and determined it was the standard height. It then explained this to the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s response to this area of complaint was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Conclusion

  1. Overall the landlord failed to adhere to its voids and repairs policies with respect of the leaking toilet. This amounts to a service failure as this led to an unnecessary delay in the toilet being repaired. This in turn caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident as she moved into a house with a leaking toilet.
  2. The landlord has offered £150 compensation. It processed this payment on 7 July 2023. However, this was to compensate the resident for the rent paid during the 2-week delay in her ability to move in and not for any other failing identified during the complaint.
  3. In view of this, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report and pay a further £100 in compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings but there was no permanent impact on the resident.

Grounds maintenance

  1. The landlord’s grounds maintenance schedule says the mowing season is from the end of March until the end of October each year. It says that during this period it will aim to cut the grass around 7 times, which equals 1 cut every 4 to 5 weeks. It also says that this will depend on the weather.
  2. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that it had spoken to the grounds maintenance team regarding the resident’s concerns about the mowing of the garden. It said it had mowed the garden on 11 April 2023 and that while it had missed some areas, it mowed these a few days later. It also explained that the start of the mowing season had been delayed for various reasons, including the weather, and as such the team were behind schedule. However, it confirmed it was allocating extra resources to resolve these issues and provided a link to the grounds maintenance schedule on its website.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek further information from the grounds maintenance team about the recent mowing. It was also reasonable for it to rely on the information provided by them. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on information provided by its contractors in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Additionally, it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that it was taking steps to address the mowing schedule delays caused by the weather.
  4. Based on all the information provided, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden.

Fire safety

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had reported the resident’s concerns about the gap under the fire door to its repairs team to address. However, it has not provided evidence to show what, if any, steps it took to inspect the door and ensure the gap between it and the floor was not too big. Without this evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude that it took all reasonable steps to investigate her concerns about the door and ensure adequate compartmentalisation. This was unreasonable.
  2. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had spoken to its fire safety team about the resident’s concerns about the communal carpet. It said it had carried out a fire risk assessment on 30 September 2022 and had not found any risks with the communal carpet. It also explained that it had installed the carpet many years ago and it only installs carpets that will not support the spread of fire.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek further information from its fire safety team. It was also reasonable for it to rely on the information provided by them. This is because it is entitled to rely on information provided by its contractors in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this instance, the resident has not provided an explanation to support her belief that the carpet in the communal area was not fire retardant.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s failure to inspect the fire door amounts to a service failure as it caused the resident distress and time and trouble as she continued to raise safety concerns.
  5. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for its failure to adequately respond to the residents concerns, to inspect the fire door and remedy any defects found.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy say it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 working days and respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and agree an extension.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 22 May 2023 and she chased the landlord for an acknowledgment on 26 May 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it received the complaint on 22 May 2023 but did not log it until 30 May 2023. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint policy timescales as it failed to log the complaint within 3 working days of receipt.
  3. Additionally, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord spoke to the resident on 12 June 2023 and agreed an extension until 16 June 2023. This was 11 working days after the landlord should have logged the complaint. Under the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, any extensions must be agreed before the deadline for a response has passed. This failure caused the resident avoidable time and trouble, as the delay led to her having to chase the landlord to log the complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s concerns about the communal carpet in its stage 1 response. It only said that the carpet ‘would have to meet fire regulations’. This was not an appropriate response as it did not address or allay the resident’s concern that the carpet did not meet fire regulations. This in turn caused the resident time and trouble as she had to raise this concern again as part of her complaint escalation.
  5. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to adhere to its complaints policy timescales and to adequately address all the resident’s concerns. Cumulatively these failures amount to a service failure as they led to unnecessary delays and caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord has not offered any compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  7. In view of this, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

a.     A service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the condition of the property at letting.

b.     No maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of concerns about the grounds maintenance.

c.      A service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of concerns about fire safety in the communal areas.

d.     A service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request for permission to install a shower is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:

a.     Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.

b.     Directly pay the resident £200 compensation, in addition to the £150 previously offered, comprised of:

  1. £100 for its poor handling of the leaking toilet.
  2. £100 for its poor complaint handling.

c.      Inspect the communal front door and ensure the gap between it and the floor is in line with fire safety regulations. It must then provide a copy of its findings to the resident and this Service.

  1. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not already done so, it should consider reinforcing to its surveyors and contractors the need to consistently check toilets for leaks prior to or post voids works.
  2. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.