Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202407070)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407070

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

22 May 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a replacement electric fire.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. The property is heated by gas central heating. The landlord provided an electric fire as a secondary heating source in the living room.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 13 November 2023 that her electric fire had been decommissioned on 12 July 2023 as the part required was no longer produced. She said the landlord had told her she would receive a new fire, however, had not had an update for 5 months. She said she had chased an update on 4 September 2023.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 November 2023. It apologised for the wait and explained her electric fire was part of planned works. Their backlog however meant it would not replace the fire until the next financial year.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 April 2024. The resident was unhappy 10 months had passed, and her electric fire had not been replaced.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024 stating:
    1.        It had no legal duty to provide the electric heater (secondary heating) as the resident had gas central heating, and it had no record of any vulnerabilities within the household requiring additional heating.
    2.        Under the current policy it was able to replace the fire, and it had been programmed for replacement in September 2024; however, it had brought this forward to May 2024. (fitted June)
    3.         It noted its records did not show it provided a response to the enquiry of 4 September 2023. It offered compensation to the resident of £150 for the delay in providing her new electric fire and its record keeping failure related to her enquire from September 2023.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 May 2024. She complained about the delay in her electric fire being replaced.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy and procedures classify electric fires as programmed replacements. The policy explains such items are funded from the capital programme budget. The policy states it will assess the fire and attempt a permanent repair. If replacement is needed, asset management will decide on including it in a future programmed replacement batch. The resident will be notified by letter on release of the batch with a completion date. It will complete each batch in 10 weeks of the release.
  2. There is no dispute there was a service failure in relation to the landlords handling of a replacement electric fire. The landlord acknowledged delays in repairs and poor record keeping. Therefore, it is left for the Service to determine whether the landlord provided proportionate redress in view of its errors.
  3. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. As far as possible, the landlord should seek to put the resident back to the position they would have been in if there had been no failure. Sometimes, however, it is not possible to do so, and, in these cases, financial compensation may be appropriate. In this case, the landlord has offered a total of £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the failure. 
  4. The landlord’s file shows it aimed to replace the fire within 16 weeks from 14 July 2023, and it was overdue as of 3 November 2023. There is no evidence provided to show it contacted the resident at the time to advise her of this. The file shows the resident contacted it on 4 September 2023. The notes state the resident was unhappy as she had not had an update about the fire in 5 months. The landlord identified within the stage 2 investigation that it had no record of it replying to this enquiry. It apologised, acknowledged its poor record keeping and offered her £50 compensation for its service failure.
  5. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlords poor record keeping and failing to reply to the residents service request of 4 September 2023.
  6. The landlord explained within the stage 2 response that it had no legal duty to provide a secondary heat source as the resident had gas central heating, but it would do so in line with its policy at the time. In its response, the landlord demonstrated it considered all the circumstances including that the primary heating source was fully operational and there were no vulnerabilities reported for the household.
  7. The landlord’s decision to treat the replacement under its programme of works policy (as above) and not as a responsive repair was reasonable. Its repairs policy states it would conduct   the replacement 10 weeks after the resident had been notified. It had further informed the resident at stage 2 it aimed to have the fire replaced within 16 weeks from 14 July 2023. It explained this extended target being due to its backlog.
  8. The landlord further stated it was assessing and prioritising category 1 repairs in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating Systems (HHSRS). This was reasonable as a landlord has to work within a budget and prioritise what it spends its funds on.
  9. The landlord’s file shows that following the resident’s complaint it kept the resident informed by letter on 30 November 2023 advising a decision would be made by the end of March 2024. It sent a further letter on 25 April 2024 advising the work would be completed by the end of September 2024. After the initial service failure in September 2023 (as above) it appropriately kept the resident updated regarding when the works were due to be completed.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it would move the work forward from September 2024 to May 2024. While it replaced the fire in June 2024, a month later from what it agreed on, this was an appropriate attempt to put things right for the resident. The replacement took 11 months (5 months outside the targeted time) in total from the date raised (14 July 2023). The landlord acknowledged this delay in the replacement and the inconvenience caused to the resident and apologised. It appropriately explained the reason for the delay and offered £100 compensation. Although the Ombudsman accepts the additional heating would have helped the resident in the winter months the landlord’s response and the level of compensation was proportionate given the fire was a secondary heating source.
  11. The total of £150 compensation (£50 for record keeping and £100 for delays) offered during the landlord’s complaints process was proportionate to the failures identified in this report and the inconvenience caused to the resident given she had for this period of time centralised heating in working order. Furthermore, the landlord resolved the repair issue. It also demonstrated it took learning from the complaint and improved its communication with the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves residents complaint about the landlord’s handling of a replacement electric fire.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to re offer compensation of £150 if not already done so.