Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202427041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427041

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

25 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of:
1. a leak from her bathroom into the ceiling and lights of the hallway and downstairs toilet.
2. other repairs, in particular damaged internal doors, repairs to the kitchen, and a repair to the stair bannister.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her property is a 3-bedroom house, and her tenancy commenced on 14 February 2022.
On 23 June 2024, the resident submitted a formal complaint. She stated:
1. there had been 200 leaks from her bathroom down to her downstairs toilet since she had moved in. She was concerned the downstairs toilet ceiling may collapse.
2. there had been no electrics in the hallway for over a year. The hallway ceiling was cracking too.
3. she believed there may be a crack in the shower tray in the bathroom. She wanted the landlord to replace the shower with a bath.
4. the leak also affected the floorboards which now had mould growing.
5. kitchen cupboards were falling off and the wood in the worktop was eroding away.
6. the boiler cupboard did not have a door.
After a visit on 3 July 2024, the resident added to her complaint. She was unhappy an inspector who visited told her if she wanted a bath, she would have to pay for it herself.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 4 July 2024. The landlord stated:
1. the inspector who visited on 3 July 2024 had agreed for it to renew the ceiling in the downstairs toilet. He also agreed it would scrape and leave smooth the artex walls in the hallway. While the toilet ceiling was removed, it would check the pipework to the shower for any possible leaks.
2. a Rapid Repairs Officer would attend to rehang damaged kitchen cupboard doors and a leak under the kitchen sink.
3. at the visit of 3 July 2024, the resident had mentioned her internal doors were severely damaged, and she was waiting for repairs. It had asked the local housing office to offer her any support she may need.
4. the inspector confirmed it would not replace the shower with a bath.
5. it apologised for the frustration caused by the inspector while at property. It would speak to him about this.
6. it would raise jobs for repairs and notify the resident of the dates.
7. it apologised for its delay in tracing and repairing the leak.
On 12 August 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She stated:
1. there was still a leak from bathroom. The leak had damaged the kitchen floor which caused injury to her child from slipping.
2. the delay to repairs was causing stress and anxiety to her family who were vulnerable, as they had fled domestic violence.
3. the electrics had been turned off due to the leak. The landlord could not therefore conduct an electrical check the previous week.
4. she had reported the damage to her internal doors 2 years previously, but they had not been fixed.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 6 September 2024. It stated:
1. following a visit on 1 September 2024, it had raised an order to install a new bath.
2. it had raised orders for 3 doors damaged at the property, the stair bannister which was damaged by the leak, and damage to the kitchen cupboards following a leak under the sink.
3. it apologised for the delay and would contact the resident about providing further support.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 February 2025. She advised:
1. the landlord had fixed the leak when it replaced the shower tray with a bath. It had also replaced the stair bannister.
2. however, there had been repairs outstanding for 2 years. There was still damage to the kitchen floor, ceiling, worktops, and cupboards. The landlord had not replaced internal doors.
3. there were no electrics in the hallway for over a year.
4. there was damp and mould in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has informed the Ombudsman that since completing the landlord’s complaints procedure, she has requested a new kitchen, windows, and insulation. She states that mould treatment of her hallway walls has damaged her decorations. She also notes the landlord has attended appointments to treat the mould in her bathroom at times when she was at work.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Landlords should have fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction within its complaints procedure prior the Ombudsman investigating its actions and omissions. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Bathroom leak into hallway and downstairs toilet

The landlord’s repairs policy, which is contained in the Tenants Handbook, sets out its target response times. It aims to respond to Emergency repairs (“Priority High”) and complete or make safe within 24 hours. An emergency includes “Internal leaking or burst pipes (only when the tenant cannot control the leak and there is a danger to the property and or belongings).” It will respond to Urgent repairs (“Priority Medium”) within 3 working days. Urgent repairs include “Leaking pipework or waste pipes”. It will respond to Small Non-Urgent repairs (“Priority Low”) within 25 working days. “Plaster patch”, “Floorboards” and “Internal door repairs” are classed as Small Non-Urgent work. Large Non-Urgent repairs (“Priority Planned”) include the renewal of kitchen units, baths, or complete suites and internal doors and/or frames, as well as plastering. There is no defined timeframe for this category of works.
The landlord’s records show in May 2023, it raised an order regarding “loose or bulging plaster” and carried out plastering works. Damaged plaster indicated there may be other repair issues, such as a leak; however, there is no evidence that the landlord established how the damage to the plaster occurred, at this time.
The resident reported a leak into downstairs toilet from above on 9 December 2023. The landlord’s records show it attended on an emergency repair basis; however, there is no evidence of what the operative assessed and completed at the visit.
The resident further reported on 7 January 2024 an uncontainable leak from the bathroom into the downstairs toilet and hallway lights. The landlord attended to investigate the leak as an emergency repair which was consistent with its repairs policy. It made safe the lights by isolating them, but it did not identify a source of the leak. The landlord attended to reconnect the light in the hall on 29 January 2024, but did not gain access. The resident, when later speaking to the landlord on 2 May 2024, advised that she had not been notified of the appointment and did not receive a card through the door.
The landlord’s records indicate the resident next reported a leak on 2 May 2024. She advised it had been leaking every day since her report in January 2024, and now this leak was uncontainable. The landlord’s records again show it attended on an emergency basis, in line with the repairs policy. However, as the leak was recurrent, it was important that it identify the source and take remedial action.
The landlord found the shower was not leaking. It noted water fell on the floor when the shower was in use, despite there being a curtain. Even if the landlord attributed the leak to the use of the shower, it was aware of the long term ongoing nature of the leak and the impact it had on the property. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been solution focussed by further investigating how the leak could be stopped. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did this at the time. This was particularly unreasonable given the potential for damage, damp, and mould from unresolved leaks. Indeed, it would appear the landlord did not take into account the resident’s statement that it leaked every day and her previous report of a bulging ceiling.
The ongoing lack of lighting in the hallway and toilet heightened the resident’s inconvenience from the failure to stop the leak. The landlord also missed an opportunity to consider how it could prevent water pooling on the bathroom floor in the first instance. For instance, it could have looked at why the shower curtain was ineffective or other design amendments.
The landlord’s records further show following the resident’s complaint of 26 June 2024, it completed an inspection on 3 July 2024. The purpose was to investigate the reported leaks from the bathroom into the downstairs toilet and hallway. While the inspection was appropriate, it should not have taken the resident’s complaint for the landlord to investigate. Ultimately, it was aware there had been an unresolved leak for several months, at least.
The stage 1 response confirms the landlord decided to renew the ceiling in the downstairs toilet, scrape the artex walls in the hallway, and check the pipework to the shower for any possible leaks. However, the repair records do not contain the outcome of visit of 3 July 2024. This is unreasonable as accurate and complete repair records ensure landlords understand the condition of their properties and enable them to monitor and manage outstanding repairs. As stated in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), ultimately, records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. A record should clearly state any decision made, and the reasons for it, including any decision to take no further action. If an action was taken, it should be clear who did what, and when. For planned actions, the record should state who will do what and by when.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord declined a request from the resident for it to replace the shower unit with a bath. The landlord is not obliged to improve or amend the resident’s property on request. There was also no supporting evidence, such as an Occupational Therapy referral, suggesting that the landlord should adapt the property in this way. However, its responsibility to investigate and stop any leaks from the shower remained.
In the stage 1 response of 4 July 2024, the landlord advised it would plan the works identified in the response, then notify the resident of the dates. When escalating her complaint on 12 August 2024, the resident complained about a delay to the repairs. She reported another uncontainable leak from the bathroom on 27 August 2024, prior to the works being arranged. The landlord responded to the report of the leak by attending the following day, in line with its emergency repair timeframe. An operative again assessed that no plumbing repairs were required as the floor was getting very wet when the shower was in use. They suggested a supervisor assess what could be done. Another operative made safe the lights and suggested a plasterer investigate a leaking shower tray.
The landlord inspected on 1 September 2024. There is no record of the inspection, therefore it is not clear what parts of the property the landlord assessed the condition of. This is a further record keeping failure. On 6 September 2024, it raised an order to install a bath as planned works. This was a pragmatic decision, to the resident’s benefit, as the landlord was not obliged to install a bath. However, it was still required to arrange the works outlined in the stage 1 response.
On 6 September 2024, the landlord confirmed an appointment for 11 October 2024 to treat mould in the property. However, the resident had previously notified mould was forming when submitting her complaint. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (October 2021) highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It also states, “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” Given the guidance, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not seek to assess and remedy the resident’s report of mould sooner. Had it done so, it may have prevented further adverse impacts on the resident. Its knowledge that the leak remained unresolved, and that water pooled on the bathroom floor after showering exacerbates the failing.
On 28 September 2024, the resident informed the landlord “The leak has been rectified and now the property is left with the damage of the leak caused” which included “Severe damp and mould”. While an appointment was pending for the mould, the landlord still had not completed the works identified in the stage 1 response. Indeed, the resident contacted it on 7 January 2025 to pursue outstanding repairs. The landlord needed to re-raise the order to replaster the walls and ceiling in the downstairs toilet and hallway on this date. On 27 January 2025, it raised an order for “a plumber to check for leaks once ceiling has been taken down by plasterers”. This indicates that it had lost oversight of the works it identified to resolve the resident’s complaint. This contributed to a significant delay as it was now 6 months after the original works order. Moreover, one of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles is “Putting Things Right”. By delaying in completing the works outlined in the stage 1 response, the landlord did not follow the principle.
As stated in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, “Putting Things Right” includes acknowledging where things have gone wrong and providing an explanation, assistance, or reasons. In this case, the landlord focussed on the works it would be completing; it did not review its previous handling of repair issues or assess the length of delays. By failing to investigate the resident’s complaint fully, the landlord failed to appreciate the extent of distress and inconvenience she and her family faced. “Learn from Outcomes” is another Dispute Resolution Principle. In this case, the landlord also missed an opportunity to learn from the outcome of the complaint.
In summary, the landlord delayed in identifying the source of the leak, mitigating the impact, and remedying it. This includes the delay in restoring the lighting in the resident’s hallway and downstairs toilet. Having identified works to make good the ceiling and walls in the toilet and hallway, it delayed in completing them. The landlord also delayed in treating mould after the resident reported this. In addition, when responding to the resident’s complaint, it did not appreciate the extent of the impact the resident and her family faced. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord.
As redress, we order that the landlord pay the resident £600 compensation. This takes into account the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. We have in particular considered the range of compensation for cases of maladministration where there was service failure that adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact. We have considered the extent of the failings regarding these repairs.

Internal doors, kitchen repairs, and bannister

When escalating her complaint, the resident stated the landlord had not repaired internal doors despite reports from 2 years previously. In the stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that following a domestic violence incident, 3 doors at the property were damaged. It had therefore raised a works order.
The landlord’s repair records confirm it raised a repair order for internal bathroom and bedroom doors as a low priority repair. This is in accordance with the repairs policy which states “Internal door repairs” are classed as small non-urgent work. However, there is no evidence the landlord subsequently completed the works, despite the resident chasing up the repair on 7 January 2025. The landlord therefore failed to take the action promised in the stage 2 response. There is also no evidence that the landlord explained why it did not carry out the works.
Correspondence in May 2025 indicates the landlord later took the position that the resident’s children had damaged the doors. It therefore considered it should recharge the resident the cost of repairs. This indicates that the landlord did not investigate the circumstances of the door repairs before responding to the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable, in particular as it as result raised the resident’s expectations that it would replace the doors.
In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen units. This included damage to a base unit from a leak under the sink. The repairs policy confirms that “the council is responsible for:
1. kitchen cupboards and cupboard drawers (cupboards beyond repair will be replaced, but not necessarily to match existing units).
2. worktops (worktops beyond repair will be replaced but not necessarily to match existing worktops.”
In the stage 1 response, the landlord committed to repair the leak under the sink. Its repair records show it raised an urgent repair request and completed this repair on 5 July 2024. This was in accordance with its repairs policy. It subsequently attended on 7 August 2024 to rehang 3 kitchen cupboard doors but did not gain access. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed the appointment. It also raised a low priority repair to repair the base unit under the sink after the inspection of 1 September 2024.
However, the landlord did not complete the works to the kitchen door and units within the timeframe for low priority repairs. In fact, the resident pursued the works when contacting the landlord on 7 January 2025. The landlord advised that its contractor had a backlog, therefore it would cancel the job and raise a new order. This confirms having agreed to complete repairs to the resident’s kitchen, the landlord delayed in completing then. The contractor attended on 17 March 2025 but did not gain access. Again, there is no evidence the landlord agreed the appointment.
The resident in her complaint raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen worktops and kitchen floor following leaks. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code highlights that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions.” However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether repairs were necessary to the worktops and floor. The landlord thereby failed to address all the kitchen repairs requested, therefore all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This was not consistent with meeting the Code.
During the investigation of the stage 2 complaint, the landlord identified a repair to the resident’s bannister. Its repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for “staircases, bannisters and handrails”. Its repair records show it raised an emergency repair. It replaced 2 missing spindles and refixed another one. The landlord therefore took appropriate action to meet its obligation to keep the bannister in good repair and resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
In summary, after committing to repair internal doors in the resident’s property, the landlord did not do so. It was unreasonable that it raised the resident’s expectations about these works. The landlord also delayed in completing works to the resident’s kitchen cupboard doors. It, furthermore, failed to consider all kitchen works raised, specifically repairs to the kitchen worktop and floor. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the other repairs raised by the resident. As redress, we order the landlord pay the resident £250 compensation. This considers the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. We have in particular considered the range of compensation for cases of maladministration where there was service failure that adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact.
The investigation has revealed that there have been several missed appointments. We therefore recommend that the landlord assess why the appointments were missed, for instance checking the contractor followed contact requests. We also recommend the landlord consider how it can minimise the possibility of missed appointments in the future. This can include finding out when the resident may not be available due to her employment before scheduling repairs.
The Ombudsman further notes the landlord did not consistently record the findings and outcome when it attended the resident’s property. It did not also record all decisions made at the time, such as its change of position on the repair to the internal doors. We have therefore recommended the landlord takes steps to ensure that it keeps accurate and timely repair records, across all relevant systems.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks from the resident’s bathroom into the ceiling and lights of the hallway and downstairs toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of other repairs, in particular damaged internal doors, repairs to the kitchen, and a repair to the stair bannister.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. pay the resident £850 compensation comprising:
  1. £600 to reflect her distress and inconvenience from the failings in its handling of the leaks from her bathroom into the hallway and downstairs toilet.
  2. £250 to reflect her distress and inconvenience from the failings in its handling of her reports of damaged internal doors and repairs to the kitchen.
2. confirm to the resident what works are currently outstanding in respect of this complaint. This includes making clear if it is still investigating the pipework above the downstairs toilet or other sources of the leak. It should include a schedule of works. In addition, it should agree mutually convenient appointments to complete any outstanding works.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends:
1. the landlord assesses why there were missed appointments and considers how it can minimise the possibility of missed appointments in the future.
2. the landlord takes steps to ensure that it keeps accurate and timely repair records, across all relevant systems. It may wish to refer the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management for guidance.