Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202107784)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107784

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

8 December 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the hallway and kitchen of his property.
  2. The resident’s reports of pest infestation in his property.
  3. The associated formal complaint

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  • How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of pest infestation in the property.
  1. Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. The Housing Ombudsman can consider complaints about local authorities’ duties as a social landlord. We cannot consider complaints about a local authority’s other activities, outside its role as a social landlord. We cannot consider complaints about pest control services offered by local authorities as this is a service offered by a local authority to all of its residents in the area, not just those who are tenants of the local authority. Therefore, the local authority is acting outside its role as a social landlord in offering pest control services. If the resident wants to pursue this aspect of his complaint further, he may be able to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO is able to consider complaints about local authority’s activities which do not directly relate to their role as social landlords.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has breathing difficulties which he said have been made worse by the state of his property. He has made the landlord aware of this.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident contacted the landlord and reported that there was damp and mould in the property. He said the hallway required replastering, a kitchen cupboard needed to be replaced and some of the exterior brickwork needed repointing and a lintel over the door needed to be replaced. The date of the request is uncertain from the information provided to the Ombudsman.
  2. The resident rang this Service on 1 July 2021 urging a response to these requests as there had been no contact from the landlord.
  3. The landlord emailed this Service on 2 July 2021 to advise that a stage one complaint has been logged.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 12 July 2021 which advised that an appointment had been made to refit the kitchen cupboard on 27 July 2021 and that repair orders were raised for the replastering and repointing but that no dates were allocated at that stage. The landlord apologised for the delay in arranging the repairs and explained that the main reason was the backlog of work created by the Covid19 lockdown.
  5. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord logged a stage two complaint.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 August 2021 reminding him that he had not arranged a date when an inspector could visit his property as requested earlier.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2021 with a list of repair issues. He also said that the state of his property was affecting his mental health and intended to take legal action against the landlord. The resident also requested that the kitchen pantry cupboard be either removed or converted into a toilet because he stated that the pantry made the house cold and several neighbouring properties owned by the landlord had had their pantry cupboards removed or converted into toilets.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 August 2021, which concluded
  1. That because the resident had carried out work to the kitchen himself in addition to that which the surveyor felt necessary that it was unable to review the surveyor’s original decision and consider whether the further work carried out by the resident was necessary.
  2. The landlord was unable to challenge the surveyor’s original decision regarding the works which needed to be done to eradicate the damp in the hallway. The landlord also noted that the resident declined to have the work done if it was not to completely replaster the hallway and the job was consequently closed without being completed. 
  3. The resident was advised that the repointing of the external walls and lintel replacement over the front door and the window had been authorised but that no date had been confirmed for this repair due to the backlog of work created by lockdown and social distancing necessitated by the Covid19 pandemic.
  4. The landlord apologised that incorrect information was given earlier regarding pest control and confirmed that this was a free service available to all residents in the area via the local authority’s pest control team. The resident emailed this Service on 9 September 2021 saying that the landlord had cancelled the plastering work and also that the person sent to carry out the work agreed with him that the entire wall needed re-plastering rather than just being patched. He believed that the landlord had no interest in resolving the problem and claimed that the landlord’s treatment of him as a disabled resident showed no empathy. He said that the landlord was aware of his disabilities and enquired how he could ask for a refund for the cost of the work he carried out himself.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair.
  2. The tenancy agreement also states that a resident can make alterations to their property with the written permission of the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy provides for a response time of 30 days non-urgent work which includes plastering and renewal of kitchen cupboards.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advises that he raised concerns about the state of the property from when he first moved in. Under paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This investigation is therefore limited to events which took place after January 2021.
  2. The resident mentioned in his email to this Service on 5 August 2021 that the state of his property was adversely affecting his mental health. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments concerning the effect the state of his property had on his health, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to pursue a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by its handling of the repairs to his property. This is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further. However, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident has experienced because of the landlord’s actions as well as the way in which the landlord responded to his reports about his health.

The repairs to the hallway and kitchen of the property

  1. The landlord accepted that the repairs took longer than they should. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the repairs were first requested. The resident complained about delays in completing repairs on 1 July 2021, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the repairs were first reported some time before this date. The kitchen cupboard repair was arranged 26 days after the resident complained on 1 July 2021. Therefore, it is likely that the repair was not completed within 30 days in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the exact extent of any delays is unknown. The Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord completed repairs in a timely manner because of this lack of clear repair records.
  2. The repointing of the exterior wall and lintel replacement over the front door and window had not been completed at the time of the landlord’s stage two complaint response on 18 August 2021. Therefore, the landlord exceeded its published timescales for these repairs as well. The plastering job was originally arranged for 4 August 2021 and was not completed within the 30-day timeframe. The landlord explained that this was because it was unable to work in residents’ homes during lockdown and now that restrictions have eased it had a backlog of work and an increase in demand added to a shortage of tradespeople because of self-isolation.  There is no evidence that the landlord regularly updated the resident about the delay in carrying out the outstanding repairs.  The delays themselves may have been beyond the landlord’s control, but the lack of updates may reasonably have caused additional stress and inconvenience to the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 August 2021 reminding him that he had not arranged a date when an inspector could visit to clarify some details to enable the repairs to progress and that this would not now be done before 11 August 2021 as the landlord’s representative was on leave until then. This would have partially contributed to the delay in carrying out the repairs.
  4. A contractor attended on 4 August 2021 to patch the plaster but the resident did not allow the contractor access to the property to carry out this work. Whilst there may be legitimate reasons for a resident refusing access to the landlord or its contractors, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays this may cause to completing repairs. This job was closed by the landlord as a result of a conversation between the resident and the landlord in which the resident stated that he wanted the hallway completely re-plastered and not just patched. The decision to repatch the plaster rather than completely replaster was taken by the landlord’s surveyor and whilst it is acknowledged that the resident disagreed with this decision, the landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s expert advice to decide what work needed to be carried out. It was not obliged to carry out full replastering against this advice.
  5. The resident has said that the landlord’s plasterer told him that the hallway needed to be fully replastered rather than being patched. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account of what he was told, the landlord could only be expected to act on reports it was given and there is no evidence that the plasterer told the landlord that a patch repair would not work.
  6. The resident’s request to either remove the pantry cupboard in the kitchen or convert it into a toilet would be regarded as an improvement to the property. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is expected to maintain the property and keep it in a good state of repair, but it is not obliged to carry out improvements. The landlord would not be obliged to remove the cupboard unless it was found to be causing or significantly contributing to the damp and mould problem and no evidence has been presented to suggest this.
  7. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of why other properties have had kitchen cupboards converted into toilets, and it may have been for specific reasons including disabled access or the size of the household meaning additional bathrooms are required. The fact that the landlord may have altered the kitchen cupboard in other properties would not automatically mean it should do so in the resident’s property. It would depend upon the individual circumstances. The Ombudsman has not requested details of the improvement works carried out to other properties as part of our investigation because this would include personal information about other residents and it would not be appropriate to request these details without the other residents’ consent. Also, as we are independent and impartial, we would not request further information in order to assist either the resident or landlord to proving their case.
  8. The resident caried out plastering work in the kitchen which differed from the surveyor’s recommendation without seeking permission from the landlord first. If he had sought permission, the landlord would have had the opportunity to review its original decision and consider whether the work was necessary and if so, whether other options might be more suitable and/or may have been cheaper than the cost the resident incurred in carrying out the work himself. There is no record of any permission being granted and therefore the landlord would not be required to reimburse the resident for the cost of carrying out this work himself.

The handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. The Complaint was logged on 1 July 2021 in response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to carry the repairs out and its email confirming the logging of the complaint stated that they aimed to respond by 15 July 2021.
  2. The resident called this Service on 16 July 2021 because he had not received the stage one complaint response from the landlord. This Service forwarded the resident a copy of the landlord’s stage one response. This was slightly outside the target response time, meaning that any inconvenience caused by this delay was not significant.
  3. The stage two complaint was logged on 22 July 2021 and responded to on 18 August 2021 which is within the landlord’s timeframe of responding within 20 working days at stage two of its process.
  4. All of the issues referred to in the complaint were progressed although with some delays for the reasons mentioned above which were beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord appropriately apologised for those. It also offered to open new complaints for other issues raised by the resident. The landlord did fail in its service to resident in two respects; the failure to provide the date the original repair date was made and the slight delay in providing the resident with the stage one response. We would recommend that the landlord rectifies these shortcomings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:   

a. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the hallway and kitchen of his   property.   

b. The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme the complaint regarding how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of pest infestation is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Reasons

  1. The landlord progressed the repairs to the kitchen, hallway, and exterior of the property in line with its repairs policy. There were some delays due to a backlog of repairs following the Ciovid19 lockdown this delay was beyond the landlord’s control but it should have done more to keep the resident updated. The landlord has acted reasonably by apologising for the delay.
  2. The stage one complaint was logged on 1 July 2021 and responded to on 12 July which is within the landlord’s published timeframe for responses. The stage two complaint was also responded to in line with the landlord’s 20 working day response timeframe. In addition, the landlord made proactive attempts to capture all relevant facts prior to appointments being made enable repairs to be successfully completed at the first attempt.
  3. The resident would not be entitled to reimbursement of the cost of repairs he carried out himself as he had not got prior written permission from the landlord for this work as set out in the tenancy agreement. His request to convert the pantry cupboard into a toilet was declined as this would be regarded as an improvement which the landlord was not obliged to carry out. It was reasonable for the landlord to cancel the plastering appointment because the resident only wanted this to go ahead if the whole hallway was going to be re-plastered and the landlord had only authorised re-patching to be carried out, in line with its surveyor’ s recommendation.

Recommendations

  1. If the resident reports to the landlord that he is continuing to experience damp and mould, the landlord should carry out a survey of the property to identify whether any further work is needed to resolve this. It should share the results of the survey with the resident and carry out any remedial works identified as necessary following the survey within its published timescales for repairs.