Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202506435)

Decision
Case ID	202506435
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident reported a damp smell coming from her kitchen in 2022. The landlord responded by raising several jobs between 2023 and 2024 to investigate and address the cause of damp and mould. The resident says she still has damp and mould at the property, and the landlord has not completed an inspection of her property subfloor.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

While it was appropriate of the landlord to arrange a CCTV drain survey and complete several repairs, overall it failed show it acted reasonably or in line with its damp and mould policy to find and remedy the cause of the damp.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy which met the requirements of our 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 a senior member of staff. 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 07 January 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a specialist drainage inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date and should include subfloor areas. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. 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. If it cannot complete the inspection by the due date, it must explain why, with evidence, and when this will be completed by. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the external areas including garden (ensuring to avoid any pet burial plots) and internal areas including the subfloor of the property, and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue, together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its response to the reports of damp and mould. 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 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing damp since 2022 and its communication over jobs. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord told her recently an operative would investigate a kitchen sink when this was not a factor. She also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not raised jobs because she had applied to buy her property under the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme.
07 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process.
21 March 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response and said: It had completed work since 2023 to address the damp and mould. A recent drainage inspection showed there were no major defects in the drainage. It had removed the resident from any planned work after it received from her a RTB application on 20 November 2024. It acknowledged the resident had experienced damp and mould for some time, but said it only needed to complete repairs it was legally required to as a result of her RTB application.
31 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint as she felt the landlord had failed to address her concerns or agree any work to identify or remedy the damp. She disputed the landlord had completed any work other than a CCTV drain survey.
16 April 2025	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response and said: It had wrongly stopped its investigations into the damp and mould and decided not to do any work after it received a RTB application from the resident. After it completed a drainage survey in September 2024 it decided no further work was needed. It listed the jobs it raised and completed between 29 February 2023 and 13 March 2025. It agreed to complete a sub floor inspection by an estimated date of 23 April 2025. It accepted there were some delays in its attendance, but said it attended the property on a “trial and error” basis and noted the resident had refused an extractor fan. It apologised for the delays and misinformation. It had agreed to complete any diagnostic and remedial work until the conclusion of the RTB sale. It offered £230 for failing to tell the resident it would continue to investigate and treat damp and mould even though she had a RTB application, the delays to the work, and its poor record keeping.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she still has damp and mould at the property, and the landlord has not completed an inspection of her property subfloor. She told us she decided not to proceed with the RTB application. She would like the landlord to explain what work is needed to identify the cause of the damp and to remedy this. She refused the £230 the landlord offered as she said this was inadequate. The landlord has said it completed a subfloor inspection on 29 April 2025. Following the complaint closure the landlord continued to investigate the water levels around the property and introduced a soakaway.

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	The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told us that the presence of damp and mould at her property likely affected her health and caused her allergies. 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 consider if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident reported to the landlord a smell of damp in 2022, although it is unclear exactly when. The landlord responded to this on 27 December 2022 asking the resident a question in relation to her report. As the resident did not respond to this until 22 February 2023, we cannot fault the landlord for the delay in it taking any further action until 29 February 2023. The landlord attended within 7 days of the resident’s communication in line with its damp and mould policy. It raised a job for a further investigation following this.
The landlord said it attended again on 12 July 2023 but the resident was not at home, however the resident has disputed this. The landlord has not provided us with evidence to verify the attendance. The landlord said it did not have a formal no access procedure in force at the time but it ought to have called the resident twice and then left a card. As it has not provided evidence to verify this was done but said it cancelled the job we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably.
The resident asked the landlord to inspect her property on 27 August 2024. Between September 2024 and November 2024 the landlord raised various jobs, including a CCTV drain survey, and associated drain repair jobs. It attended the property to extend a condensate pipe and downpipe into a drain on 3 September 2024 which was 5 working days from the resident’s contact on 27 August 2024. This was within the 25 working days target in the landlord’s maintenance and repair policy (“repair policy”). It also attempted to inspect the resident’s property on 11 September 2024 and complete a CCTV drain survey which was within 11 working days of the resident’s request. Although it could not gain access, this attendance was in line with the 25 working days target in the repair policy.
The landlord completed repairs to the rear gully on 28 September 2024, which was 23 working days from the resident’s contact on 27 August 2024. It also completed repairs to the side gulley on 1 November 2024 which was within 24 working days of it recommending the work on 28 September 2024. It completed the jobs to the gulley in line with the target 25 working days in its repairs policy. By 14 November 2024 the landlord had completed the CCTV survey of all external drains, and repairs, and found no major defects. It also attended to a job to check the resident’s kitchen sink and check for a leak or mould within 16 working days, in line with its repairs policy.
However, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould:
1. while the landlord said it completed a mould and damp inspection in September 2024 it has not explained what it found, nor has it provided a copy of the report
2. the landlord said it raised a job on 3 September 2024 to install a fan in the kitchen and attempted to do this 3 times between 11 September 2024 and 6 November 2024. However it has not provided evidence to verify it attempted to visit apart from on 16 October 2024. Neither has it provided evidence that this would have resolved the damp and mould
3. while the landlord said it completed a job on 20 November 2024 relating to an external leak from the water mains it has not provided us with evidence of this, and the resident disputed this job took place
4. it told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response it would not continue to investigate the damp and mould because she had a RTB application
5. it took the landlord 519 working days to complete a damp and mould inspection on 13 March 2025 from when the resident reported damp on 22 February 2023
6. while it said it completed a subfloor inspection on 29 April 2025 the resident disputed this and the landlord has not provided evidence to verify this.
Considering the above failures, we cannot be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its damp and mould policy to find the cause of the damp and mould and to resolve it in a timely way. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays in arranging works and for poor record keeping and offered the resident compensation of £230. However, this was not proportionate to the impact of the level of failings we have found. The resident told the landlord that the prolonged presence of unresolved damp had caused her distress, including over the loss of a pet parrot which she attributed to her housing conditions. She also said the delays in the work meant she was unable to complete her RTB application and the landlord’s level of communication caused her distress.
While we cannot assess the cause of the death of the resident’s pet, the lack of clear communication and the above failures likely caused her distress and inconvenience. We have awarded compensation of £400 to reflect this, which is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident. As there is a dispute over whether the subfloor inspection is outstanding and the damp remains, we have made an order in relation to this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complies with the Code. We found:
1. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, against a target of 10 working days
2. It took the landlord 12 working days to respond at stage 2 of its complaint process from when the resident escalated her complaint, against a target of 20 working days.

Learning

It is important for landlords to keep a record of all contacts with residents, including any appointments and repairs. This is to ensure there is an audit trail to show what action the landlord took and to help identify and resolve issues. It is also important for landlords to take timely action to respond effectively to damp and mould, including by ensuring there is clear and regular communication over its proposed actions with timescales. Our spotlight report on damp and mould e-learning and the recommendations numbered 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, and 21 in our spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) contain good practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord acknowledged its record keeping was poor. The absence of inspection reports, the lack of evidence to verify attendances and in some cases work meant we could not thoroughly assess the landlord’s actions.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It failed to show it made appointments with the resident at times or communicate planned work and it failed to offer her a schedule of work, with a timescale for likely start and completion of jobs.