Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202431978)

Background

1. The resident reported leaks in his loft space in 2022, 2023 and 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks and the associated repairs.
   2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the associated repairs.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord carried out a detailed review of previous repairs reported. It noted it had completed inspections and actioned the majority of reported repairs in line with its policy. It recognised a failure to complete 2 repairs, explained the cause of this and offered reasonable compensation to recognise the adverse effect this had on the resident.
7. The landlord showed a timely response to the report of damp and mould. It maintained good communication to ensure it completed an inspection and offered a second opinion in line with the resident’s request. It then completed repairs in line with the resident’s wishes.
8. The landlord responded to the complaint in accordance with its policy and 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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. We may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time of the matter arising, which is usually 12 months. In the resident’s 2024 complaint, he raised repairs he felt were ongoing since 2022. At stage 2, the landlord adopted a resolution‑focused approach and reviewed the resident’s concerns about these historic repairs, providing explanations and clarifying what works it had completed. In line with the Ombudsman’s principles of proportionality and fairness, we acknowledge the landlord’s stage 2 review for context but have not made findings on the substantive handling of repairs in 2022 given the time that has passed since then.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete emergency repairs in 24 hours, urgent repairs in 3 working days, priority repairs in 7 working days and routine repairs within 25 working days. It will make safe a missing or cracked roof tile as an emergency then continue as a routine repair. It says it will treat inoperable stop taps as a priority repair.
11. The resident raised a complaint about repairs and damage following a leak in December 2022. He did so in October 2024 so this fell outside the 12-month timeframe set by the landlord’s complaints policy. Nevertheless, the landlord referenced these matters in its stage 2 response. This included reviewing whether it completed repairs at the time, clarifying the insurance process for damaged belongings, and confirming that it had completed subsequent works within policy timescales. The landlord explained record keeping and data retention prevented it from looking into issues too far outside of the 12 month deadline. This was a reasonable approach. The landlord appropriately clarified its approach and provided evidence-based findings where it could.
12. When the resident reported a roof leak in October 2024 the landlord carried out a temporary repair on the same day. It returned within 25 days to complete the repair. This was appropriate and within the timeframes of its repairs policy. It was reasonable in raising an inspection a few days after responding to the leak, when the resident reported damp and mould. It also raised a repair to replace the insulation. The resident initially declined the inspection, but it maintained good communication and later agreed this with the resident.
13. In the resident’s complaint, he broadly referred to outstanding repairs following leaks. The landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately reviewed repairs directly relating to damp, mould and leaks. In November 2024, the resident clarified that he felt work to the stop tap and replacement loft insulation were outstanding. He said the landlord should have completed pipe lagging and wall panelling work after the 2022 leak.
14. The landlord has provided evidence of a repair to the stop tap in March 2023. It resolved this within 24 hours. It raised a further job to renew or replace the stop tap in October 2023, but it did not complete this repair. This was a failing under its repairs service which it appropriately recognised in its stage 2 response.
15. The landlord has provided evidence it inspected the loft in March 2023 and noted there were no issues. It raised a repair to replace loft insulation following the roof leak in October 2024 but had not completed this by the time of its November 2024 stage 2 response. It appropriately explained why this repair went beyond its due date and suitably recognised this as a failing in the stage 2 response.
16. The landlord reasonably explained in its stage 2 response that it had inspected the resident’s property after the 2022 leak and raised relevant repairs. It explained it had no records to suggest that it had identified pipe lagging or wall panelling repairs at this time. It acknowledged it had repaired the pipes in December 2022 and, following a further report of a leak in December 2023, replaced some pipe lagging.
17. The landlord explained the resident had requested an inspection of his bathroom in October 2023 and it attended within the necessary timescale. It completed works, including replacement wall panelling, within the relevant timescales. It confirmed it had no record or reports of repairs to the bathroom prior to this. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property following the leak and rely on the resident to report any further issues that arose beyond this.
18. The landlord reasonably addressed all of these repairs in its stage 2 response in November 2024. It was resolution focussed in reviewing a wider range of repairs in its stage 2 response. It recognised its failure to action all repairs promptly and explained this was due to a technical issue in raising the stop tap repair and a contractor delay with the insulation.
19. The landlord issued orders to complete these works and offered compensation of £150 for this failing. This was in line with its compensation policy for service failures of a medium impact. This was a reasonable offer and in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected a resident.
20. We therefore find that the landlord’s recognition of its failures and offer of compensation were sufficient to put things right.

21. The landlord’s stage 1 response provided a detailed repairs history. This evidenced it had inspected the property after leaks and actioned repairs. It showed it had not received or been aware of issues of damp and mould at the property prior to the resident’s October 2024 complaint.
22. The landlord explained it had offered a damp and mould survey once the resident raised this concern in his complaint, but he had refused this. It appropriately encouraged him to allow it to carry this out. It continued to offer this and completed a survey prior to its November 2024 stage 2 response. It noted high humidity and offered a kitchen extractor and positive input ventilation unit. It also encouraged him to use his heating. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspection outcome to inform its communications with the resident.
23. The resident requested a further survey and a second opinion, which the landlord reasonably provided. This noted that with the heating on, humidity wasn’t a problem. There was a small patch of mould recently exposed under the bedroom wallpaper which required a mould wash and the resident had re-considered and would allow it to fit an extractor fan. The landlord appropriately raised these works and completed the mould wash and bedroom decorations. The resident later refused access for the asbestos survey needed to provide a kitchen extractor, but the landlord has since re-raised this job. This shows continued positive communication from the landlord to resolve the damp-related issues.
24. The landlord clarified prior to its stage 2 response that the resident did not want the concerns about the work raised in the first inspection included in his complaint. As a result, it did not address those concerns. This was reasonable as the inspection had not changed the outcome of its investigation at stage 1.
25. Overall, the landlord took proactive steps inspecting the property after leaks. Once it became aware of damp and mould, the landlord acted quickly and maintained regular contact to encourage the resident to allow an inspection. It later provided a second opinion in line with the resident’s request and completed related follow-on works. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

26. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Code.
27. The resident raised concerns in October 2024 about repairs and damage following a leak in December 2022. This fell outside the 12-month timeframe set by the landlord’s complaints policy. While it did not substantively investigate these matters at stage 1, the landlord acknowledged them at stage 2 in a resolution-focused manner. This included reviewing whether records showed it had completed repairs at the time and clarifying the insurance process for damaged belongings. It confirmed that it had completed subsequent works within policy timescales.
28. The landlord explained record keeping and data retention prevented it from looking in detail at issues too far beyond the 12 month deadline. This was a reasonable approach and it appropriately clarified why this limitation was in place.
29. The landlord was unable to address the resident’s concerns about claiming for damaged items following the 2022 leak directly, due to the time that had elapsed. Nevertheless, it used the complaint process to respond reasonably and ensure the resident was aware of the process. It appropriately offered support with this in its stage 2 response.
30. The landlord’s complaint responses were sent within the necessary timescales and were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord was fair and sought to pro-actively investigate and resolve the substantive issues for the resident. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s records show that it maintains generally strong and detailed record‑keeping practices, which is a positive foundation for effective service delivery. It was able to identify through the complaints process that a repair remained outstanding well beyond expected timescales. However, this indicates a missed opportunity to use its records to actively monitor repair progress and trigger the appropriate processes when delays occur. To strengthen its approach, the landlord should ensure that it uses its robust record‑keeping to its full extent so that it not only stores information accurately, but that this is also routinely reviewed and acted upon. By embedding processes that make use of recorded data to identify overdue actions, the landlord can better ensure timely repairs and prevent issues from being overlooked in future.

Communication

32. The landlord generally demonstrated good communication throughout the resident’s case, providing clear updates and maintaining regular contact. Overall, the landlord’s approach shows a strong foundation. With more consistent use of its existing records to prompt early intervention, it may be able to strengthen its communication practices.