Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202506461)

Background

1. The landlord moved the resident into temporary housing while it completed repairs to her home. She said delays in completing the work affected the mental health of her and her child, and risked damp and mould damage to personal belongings she left behind.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. management of repairs and communication while the resident was in temporary housing
   2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its management of repairs and communication while the resident was in temporary housing
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s management of repairs and communication while the resident was in temporary housing

4. The landlord gave a clear explanation for its decision to move the resident to a temporary house while it completed essential repairs. However, it failed to update her regularly on the progress of works or explain delays. It did not respond to her concerns about the impact of the delays on her child’s mental health. It gave unclear guidance on making an insurance claim.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord gave clear and efficient responses within its timeframes. It addressed each issue that the resident raised.

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.

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.

6. The resident was moved into temporary housing after the landlord discovered a dangerous fault with her floor. It took action quickly, helping her view and choose a suitable temporary house in September 2024, within a month of identifying the problem. It was positive that it acted quickly and showed that it understood the importance of ensuring her safety as soon as it could.
7. However, once the resident had moved, there is no evidence that the landlord took any immediate action to begin the works. The first recorded action it took was on 4 April 2025 when it started the process of creating its scope of works. It told her in its complaint responses that this was because of budgetary constraints. However, it did not explain this to her at any point after her move until she had raised her complaint.
8. In its Decant Policy, the landlord says it will keep tenants regularly updated on the progress of the works happening in their home. It commits to giving weekly updates and a timescale for the completion of work. It was unreasonable that the resident was not contacted with an explanation of the progress it was making. It should have explained the delays in the process as soon as it knew about them. It did not reflect on her experience to show it understood the distress and upheaval she faced as its policy says it will.
9. In addition, the landlord told us it was waiting until the start of the new financial year before beginning its scope of work. While this may have been a reasonable consideration under its financial responsibilities, it was unfair that it did not explain this delay to the resident. It should have recognised that this delay would have caused her additional distress and inconvenience. She faced uncertainty as a result of its poor communication. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and offered compensation for its lack of contact between January and March 2025, which was reasonable for that period.
10. In its stage 2 response, it promised to provide the resident with fortnightly updates. Its call logs show it was in contact with her more regularly after this response, which showed that it was taking learning from the process. Its Project Liaison Officer also spoke to her separately to arrange to regularly add credit to her gas and electric meters which showed it was addressing other concerns she had raised in her complaint.
11. In its Repairs and Maintenance Policy, the landlord says planned repair works may take up to 18 months. It says it will leave properties in good repair, whilst also promoting efficiency, transparency, and effective communication in the repair processes.
12. The landlord signed off the repairs on 4 December 2025, a year after the resident was moved into temporary housing. While it was within the timeframe set out in its policy, it did not give clear explanations for the length of time it took. Given the resident had been expecting works to be finished after 3 to 4 months, its lack of urgency in completing the work did not show empathy for her situation. Though the complexity of the repair meant it needed more time to complete its planning process, the repair itself was raised with a target completion date of just over a month later.
13. It was unreasonable that a repair which the landlord knew would take such a short period of time to complete was excessively delayed by its internal planning process. It should have been more mindful of the impact the resident had raised in her complaint. It should have acted more quickly once it acknowledged that it had not been realistic about the timescale of the works in it stage 2 response. It did not show it was taking learning from the complaint. When it did complete the work, it did so to a good standard, working with the resident to ensure it identified any outstanding issues before considering the repair complete.
14. It is reasonable for compensation to be paid in recognition of the unreasonable delays the resident faced. Though it improved on its communication, she faced ongoing uncertainty about when she would be able to return home, adding to her family’s distress.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her belongings being left in her home and took steps to reassure her that there was no damp or mould in the property. It visited the property on 11 April 2025 and noted the property might need ventilating but no belongings were damaged. In its responses it encouraged her to make an insurance claim if she suspected it of negligence that resulted in damage to her belongings. It explained the process of making a claim which was positive and showed that it understood her concerns.
16. However, the resident’s subsequent claim was denied by its insurer based on the landlord’s Transit Consultation Policy which says it cannot be held responsible for items left in a property during a move into a temporary home. We cannot comment on the decision of the insurer. However, given that it knew this policy applied, it was unreasonable that the landlord raised her expectations by encouraging her to make an insurance claim. It could have taken the opportunity to explain its position sooner and considered other ways it could offer her reassurance about the condition of her belongings, such as with photographs of the property.
17. The resident said she and her family had worsening health conditions because of the landlord’s delays. We cannot say if the landlord’s actions directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can assess evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
18. In its Vulnerability Protocol it says the landlord will assess the impact of a situation on a vulnerable person when it is notified of their vulnerability. It will decide what actions it will take and record these, along with plans for how it will progress them. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident said her and her daughter’s mental health was impacted by both the move and the subsequent delays in completing repairs. It explained how she could make a personal injury claim which was positive and provided her with a way forward.
19. However, the landlord failed to consider whether there were other ways it could offer support to the resident and her family once she told it their health was being impacted. There is no evidence that it recorded any actions it had considered as its policy says it will. This was unreasonable and did not show it was considering the impact of the circumstances on the family. It could have spoken to her about the ways it could support the individual needs in the household.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”) The landlord asked the resident for an extension to its response deadline at stage 1 which she agreed to.
21. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 15 working days after requesting an extension (24 March 2025 to 14 April 2025) which was in line with the Code
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 18 working days (16 April 2025 to 14 May 2025) which was in line with the 20 days allowed by the Code
22. The landlord’s complaint handling was efficient and consistent with its policy. It communicated clearly when it needed more time to respond and kept to the time limits it set out. Its responses considered every aspect of the complaint and made its position on each issue clear. It can reflect positively on its complaint handling.

Learning

23. The landlord made efforts to follow its processes in the circumstances. However, it could reflect on how it might have improved the resident’s experience through more effective communication and observation of its vulnerability protocol. It could also consider which stages of its planning process resulted in the most significant delays to the repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord did not keep clear records of actions or interventions it considered when it was notified there were vulnerabilities in the household. It could reflect on how it applies its vulnerability protocol moving forward.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication improved following the complaints procedure.It could reflect on how the resident’s experience would have been different if it had been transparent about its progress from the start of the repair process.