Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202523800)

Background

1. In 2022 the landlord agreed to complete repairs to the resident’s laminate flooring and the plaster on the walls and ceiling. It did not complete the repairs and in 2025 said that they were not necessary and withdrew its offer to complete them. The resident also reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour, which he said had been ongoing for 4 years. The resident and his wife live with health conditions which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Disagreement with the landlord’s decision that the previously agreed works were no longer required.
   2. Reports of ASB.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s disagreement with the landlord’s decision that the previously agreed works were no longer required.
4. We have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. We have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its failings and offered compensation proportionate to the failings we identified. It agreed to complete repair work to the flooring, which was the main issue for the resident.
7. The landlord was proactive in gathering evidence, engaging with relevant teams and escalating the case as necessary. However it did not complete a risk assessment, share an action plan with the resident or maintain regular contact. It also did not consider the impact on the resident and his wife’s health conditions, which the resident said were being directly and seriously impacted by the ASB. The landlord’s complaint responses did not recognise these failings.
8. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints promptly and in full.

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.

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. The landlord issued a final response to an earlier complaint, which included concerns about the flooring and other repairs, on 10 January 2024. That complaint was not referred to us and the complaint we are now investigating was raised more than 12 months later. As such this investigation has considered events that occurred after 10 January 2024.
10. Between February 2024 and January 2025, the landlord repeatedly failed to provide updates about repair work and a temporary move to the resident. It had arranged a flooring survey on 12 March 2024 but gave no information to him afterwards. The resident asked for updates on 3, 13 and 21 May, and again on 19 July 2024. On 7 August 2024, the landlord agreed to complete repairs to damaged plaster and said it would consider the flooring repairs. It then gave no further updates until the resident contacted the landlord again in January 2025. This lack of action left the resident without clear information and prolonged uncertainty about the repairs. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its complaint responses, apologised and offered compensation.
11. On 20 February 2025, following a visit to the property, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that the repairs it had previously agreed to for the flooring and cracked plaster were recommended in error and it would not be completing them.
12. On 25 March 2025 the landlord visited the property and identified hairline cracks in the plaster. The repairs policy says that superficial plaster cracks are the resident’s responsibility. As such, the landlord was not required to repair them. Any potential obligation arose because it had previously agreed to carry out the work. The landlord accepted that it should not have agreed to complete the plaster repairs and acknowledged this as an error. It recognised the inconvenience caused both by changing that decision and by the time taken to reach its final position. In its final response, the landlord explained that it needed to manage its resources appropriately and that repairs offering little or no improvement would not be justified. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its mistake, the impact on the resident and gave a fair explanation.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that laminate flooring is the resident’s responsibility unless the landlord installed it. The resident originally installed the flooring in 2019. The landlord replaced it in 2021, which it said it had done as a gesture of goodwill.
14. While the landlord initially refused to complete further repairs, on 20 June 2025, in a follow up to its stage 1 response, it agreed to repair both the subfloor and replace the damaged laminate. It confirmed that 12 months after installation it would become the resident’s responsibility. This was a reasonable response that sought to resolve the issue and provided clarity for the future.
15. At the time of our investigation, the agreed repair work to the flooring remains outstanding. The resident said this was because the landlord had not provided suitable temporary accommodation. The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy does not require a move for this type of work. However the landlord recognised that the resident’s wife, who uses a wheelchair, would be unable to stay at the property while works were completed. It agreed a temporary move. This demonstrated its consideration of a reasonable adjustment which was appropriate.
16. The landlord explained that finding suitable temporary accommodation was difficult due to the household’s specific needs. It said it had offered several options, including staying in a dog friendly hotel with the landlord covering the cost of boarding the family’s pet rabbits, staying with friends or relatives with reimbursement of expenses, or sourcing their own accommodation with a financial contribution from the landlord. The landlord also said the property could still be used for sleeping each night. It added, if the resident could vacate during the day, it would cover costs for daily expenses.
17. The landlord made reasonable suggestions, demonstrating a commitment to progressing the repairs and a willingness to make reasonable adjustments. Any adjustments had to remain within what it could realistically provide. The options were limited by the household’s specific needs and the availability of suitable accommodation. The landlord took reasonable steps to offer appropriate accommodation or alternative solutions.
18. The resident disputed the landlord’s view that the flooring posed no safety concerns. He said there were risks that its inspections had not addressed. A joint visual inspection with the landlord and an occupational therapist on 19 February 2025 found no immediate safety concerns, and a flooring consultant reached the same conclusion during an inspection on 9 May 2025. Given these assessments, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinions provided and conclude that the flooring did not present an immediate risk.
19. The resident raised several questions within his complaint, including how the landlord could estimate the duration of the works, his disagreement with the information provided about his banding and the qualifications of the staff member who advised that the flooring and plaster did not require repair. We reviewed these matters as part of our investigation and found that the landlord addressed each point appropriately within its complaint responses.
20. In summary, the landlord’s communication during the year leading up to the complaint was poor. It also gave conflicting information about the completion of repairs. The impact of these failings was significant, causing prolonged uncertainty, likely distress and inconvenience, and unnecessary time and trouble for the resident seeking updates.
21. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered £1,400 compensation. This amount was proportionate to the impact of failings which had a significant impact on the resident. It gave a fair explanation about why it would not repair damaged plaster and agreed to complete the flooring repairs, directly addressing a key concern. The landlord’s ability to complete the repairs was delayed by challenges in securing suitable temporary accommodation, which was outside its control. As professional inspections confirmed there were no immediate safety risks, it was not required to treat the matter with more urgency. As such we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

22. The resident told us that the ASB had been ongoing for several years. This investigation is limited to events from February 2024 onwards, as the landlord advised that earlier reports had been addressed under a previous complaint.
23. In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, from February 2024 the landlord actively gathered evidence. It requested additional information from other agencies, neighbours, and the resident. For example on 9 April 2024 the landlord wrote to all properties nearby asking about their experiences of ASB. It provided the resident access to the ASB reporting app and an out of hours reporting line, collated incident diaries and supplied sound monitoring equipment. These actions strengthened the evidence base and gave the resident accessible reporting options.
24. The policy also requires the landlord to work with relevant organisations. Between 10 April and 17 April 2024, the landlord engaged with the police and the council’s noise pollution team. It also met with colleagues to create a plan. After April 2024, it continued to work jointly with the council and did so until June 2025 when it was agreed that the council should take over the case. These actions supported a coordinated, multi-agency approach.
25. The policy refers to taking proportionate action and adds the landlord will let the harm caused and the evidence it obtains guide its decision making in respect of what action to take. After noise reports in February 2024, the landlord visited the neighbour and asked them to be mindful of their behaviour. After the resident made further reports in April 2024, the landlord warned the neighbour about noise nuisance and the risk of tenancy enforcement. Reports then reduced for the rest of the year. Between December 2024 and March 2025, the resident made over 10 ASB reports, and at the end of March 2025 the landlord issued a community protection warning. These actions showed a proportionate escalation in response to the frequency of reports.
26. While the landlord acted in line with the ethos of its policy, it failed to meet key requirements. For example, it should have completed a risk assessment and action plan. There is no evidence that it did so or that a plan was communicated to the resident. After the formal warning was given to the neighbour, the resident continued to make ASB reports in April, May and June 2025, with no clear plan in place.
27. The landlord did not maintain monthly contact as required by its policy, with communication breaks between 18 April and 3 June 2024, 21 July and 18 September 2024, and 18 September and 21 December 2024. While ASB reports were not being made regularly, the landlord should have contacted the resident at least monthly.
28. The landlord was also required to take proportionate action based on the harm to the resident and the impact of the ASB, and to reassess risk if circumstances changed. In March 2025, the resident reported smoke entering his home from the same neighbour’s property, which he said worsened his COPD and caused his wife, who lives with a disability, to experience seizures. The resident reported serious health concerns and significant impact. The landlord did not acknowledge the increased risk or show that it had adjusted its approach in response.
29. In summary, the landlord took steps to address the ASB but it did not assess risk, provide a clear action plan, engage with the resident as required or respond appropriately in relation to household vulnerabilities. This left the resident with ongoing uncertainty and without confidence that any effective action would be taken.
30. We have made a finding of maladministration and an order for the landlord to pay £600 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the impact of failings which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right. It reflects the severity of the reported health impacts, the longstanding nature of the issue and the likely distress the uncertainty caused to the resident. This sum also reflects the fact that, due to the vulnerabilities of the household, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

31. Our Complaint Handling Code (our Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord met the required timeframes at both complaint stages.
32. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not consider issues that happened more than 12 months ago, in line with our Code. The landlord said it would not consider the resident’s reports of damaged plaster from 2022 because too much time had passed. We recognise the resident may not have raised this earlier because the landlord said it would repair it. However the landlord inspected the plaster in 2025 and did not find serious damage, so it was reasonable not to consider damage from 2022.
33. The policy also says it will not consider matters already reviewed at both complaint stages. The landlord said it would not consider ASB reports before 9 February 2024 because it had already assessed earlier reports. This was reasonable and in line with policy.
34. The landlord’s responses covered all aspects of the resident’s complaint and clearly explained the reasons for its decisions. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

36. The landlord appropriately recognised its communication failures.

Reasonable adjustments

37. The landlord considered reasonable options for a temporary move. We have also reviewed evidence of engagement after the final complaint response which showed that it explored further temporary accommodation options and made additional suggestions. The landlord’s continued efforts to resolve this issue demonstrated a strong commitment to customer service.