Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council — case 202418537

Decision Case ID 202418537 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 13 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a flat in a block with communal areas. The resident raised a complaint that a damp repair had left the communal floor with mismatched vinyl and repairs to the skirting in the communal area had been delayed before these were completed. The resident remains dissatisfied with the partial repair to the floor and wants the entire floor to be replaced.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the communal area’s flooring and skirting. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal area’s flooring and skirting. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord explained that it would only replace areas that posed a potential health and safety risk and would not carry out works for cosmetic reasons, which was reasonable.

It also cited understandable budgetary constraints. During its complaints process, it explained that works had been raised for the outstanding repairs to the skirting, however these took almost 14 months to complete. The landlord did not address the continued skirting repair delay and lack of progress during its complaints process and therefore we have found service failure for this. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy and with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by the complaints manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 13 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal area’s flooring and skirting. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 13 March 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the communal area of the property for signs of damp and mould, and whether a repair is required. It must share the results of the inspection with us. If damp and mould is found, it must inform us of the full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work No later than 13 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 19 June 2024 Contractors repaired the damaged sections of the communal flooring after damp works.

22 June 2024 The resident submitted a complaint about colour mismatch caused by the partial repair of the flooring. She also reported that skirting in the communal area needed repair. 9 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that the floor was functional and did not require replacement for cosmetic reasons. It cited budget constraints and said further improvement work would follow a stock condition survey. It confirmed that works had been raised to renew missing flooring and skirting on the ground floor.

16 July 2024 The resident requested escalation of her complaint, stating that she had been informed the whole floor would be replaced. She also stated that the partial repair looked unsightly and reflected poorly on the block. 29 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed its stage 1 position and explained that its tenant engagement officer tried to resolve the issue but did not recall informing the resident that the entire floor would be replaced. It confirmed that it could not replace the entire floor because it was not faulty.

Senior management confirmed the repair was safe, functional, and satisfactory despite its appearance. It also explained that it raised a new order to renew the skirting. 23 June 2025 Works to the skirting was completed. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident complained to us that the partial floor repair looked “dreadful and embarrassing”. She wanted the landlord to repair or replace the whole floor. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal area’s flooring and skirting Finding Service failure What we did not consider The resident told us that she has a breathing condition and her health has been affected by damp in the communal area. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we did consider In May 2024, the landlord carried out damp‑related works to the communal area following the resident’s report of damp and mould. The communal flooring was also damaged and therefore required replacement.

Contractors replaced the damaged sections of the flooring on 19 June 2024. The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not replace the entire floor. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it had completed the necessary repair to the damaged sections and that the floor remained functional. It stated that it did not need to replace the entire floor for cosmetic reasons and referred to budget constraints. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out only the necessary flooring repairs because the resident’s tenancy agreement and its tenant handbook do not require it to complete cosmetic works under its repair obligations.

We found no evidence that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise discretion and replace the entire floor solely for cosmetic reasons. The resident requested escalation of her complaint, stating that she had been informed the whole floor would be replaced. We found no evidence that the resident had been told whether the entire floor or only a section would be replaced, or that a colour mismatch would occur. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise the potential mismatch beforehand, however, to manage expectations.

Following the complaint, the landlord carried out a further inspection. This was appropriate and demonstrated its commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns. We also saw internal consideration of whether the floor could be replaced. The landlord concluded that the repair was safe, functional, and satisfactory despite its appearance. In its final response, it acknowledged the resident’s frustrations but explained that it was not responsible for cosmetic changes under the tenant handbook.

We therefore found no failings in this regard. However, the resident informed us that, due to age and condition, the flooring has since deteriorated. She is also concerned that damp is seeping through the flooring and now poses a health and safety risk. We therefore order the landlord to inspect the flooring for signs of damp and mould and share the results of the inspection with us. If damp is found, it should inform us of the actions it will take to resolve the issue. During the internal complaints process, the resident raised additional repairs, including repairs to the skirting.

Works were raised on 25 April 2024 and 3 July 2024. In the stage 2 response on 29 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had raised a new works order. However, no progress followed until the job was raised for the fourth time on 9 January 2025 and eventually completed on 23 June 2025. This and other large non‑urgent repairs do not have a stated target timeframe in the landlord’s tenant handbook. Communal area redecoration falls under the improvement plan. While there is no information on how this work was classified, the landlord first raised skirting works in April 2024 and completed them almost 14 months later in June 2025.

This was not reasonable. Furthermore, during the internal complaints process, the landlord was aware that the skirting needed to be renewed but offered no apology to address the continued delay or any other attempts to put things right. This would have been reasonable. Additionally, the resident was inconvenienced by having to follow up with the landlord on the renewal of the skirting boards. We therefore find service failure in its handling of repairs to the communal area. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing this matter.

This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of up to this level of compensation to recognise landlords’ service failures in getting such matters resolved. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. Complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and if further time is needed at any stage, this will be agreed with the resident.

These time limits are consistent with the Code, which allows similar extensions where necessary and communicated to the resident. On 1 July 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint made on 22 June 2024 and apologised for the delay in doing so, as the acknowledgement should have been issued within 3 working days. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this delay and offer an apology. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 July 2024, 12 working days after the complaint was submitted.

This was one day late, but the minimal delay caused no adverse impact and therefore did not amount to a failing. Furthermore, in its acknowledgement, the landlord informed the resident that a response would be sent by 10 July 2024. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 July 2024, and the landlord responded on 29 July 2024, 5 working days after the escalation. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord responded within its policy timeframe both at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process.

Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to investigate the complaint. Communication It would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise the extent of the repair and colour mismatch with the resident prior to the repair to manage expectations.