Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202217023)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217023

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

29 February 2024


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 complaint is about:-
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the upstairs wet room into the kitchen below.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged kitchen tiles.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for fencing.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy of the property, a 3 bedroom semi–detached house, owned by the landlord. Her tenancy started in September 2020.
  2. The resident first reported a leak from her upstairs wet room into her kitchen to the landlord on 18 February 2021. The landlord attended the same day however a number of appointments were required before repairs were completed on 10 May 2021. On 15 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again to report mould in the wet room and a recurrence of the leak. 
  3. The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 2 September 2022 to submit a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes state the resident said the complaint was about outstanding works to the bathroom, which had been on-going for two years, a hole in the kitchen ceiling and mould. The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints process on 14 September 2022. It said that at the time of the surveyor’s visit they were unable to locate the leak but a 25 day work order has been raised to trace and remedy it. It also said it would treat the mould, redistribute loft insulation and re-raise works to repair the resident’s kitchen tiling.
  4. On 21 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two. The resident said that she had been told previously the works would be completed within 25 days but nothing happened. The landlord provided its final response on 19 October 2022. It said that the leak had been traced and resolved and that contractors would be in contact with the resident to repair the damage. The landlord then issued a further response on 3 October 2023, acknowledging the resident had cause to report a further leak in November 2022 following its final response.
  5. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident has said, the last time contractors attended they told the resident they were unsure what else they could do. She also said the leak is still on-going.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In her complaint the resident has said that the leak has been on-going for two years. However, whilst the leak was reported in early 2021, there is no record of the resident contacting the landlord about the leak between May 2021 and June 2022. As such, whilst this Service has sympathy with the residents comments that this was all the same leak, we find it fair and reasonable to start our investigation from her reports in June 2022.
  2. The resident has also raised concerns about a leak which started in August 2023. Specifically, the resident has said it is the same leak which occurred previously in June 2022. However, the Housing Ombudsman Scheme outlines that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have yet to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. Given the newer leak occurred 9 months after the resident’s reports in November 2022 and 10 months after the landlord’s final response, it would not be appropriate to comment on it, until the landlord has first had an opportunity to consider it as part of its complaints process. An order has been made to this effect.
  3. On 8 February 2024 the resident informed this Service that no further investigation concerning mould and damp was required. The resident has said that the landlord has resolved this issue to her satisfaction.

Policies and procedures

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states “(1) In a lease to which this section applies there is implied a covenant by the lessor … (b) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electric and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences)”
  2. The landlord’s repairs clarification document outlines 4 timescales for its responsive repairs these are “Priority 1 – Emergency repair – to be completed within 24 hours, Priority 2 – Urgent repair – to be completed in 3 working days, Priority 3 – Priority repair – to be completed in 7 working days, Priority 4 – Routine repair – to be completed in 25 working days.”

Leak

  1. On 15 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report mould in her bathroom as well as issues with the door front and plinths in the kitchen. In response to the resident’s reports the landlord raised a job for a multi skilled inspection of the property. This was a reasonable investigative step and in line with the landlord’s policies.
  2. The landlord’s policy outlines four potential repairs timescales with 25 working days being the longest. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the inspection undertaken within a maximum of 25 working days. The inspection took place on 28 July 2022 which was 6 working days outside of this timescale, unreasonable and caused delays.
  3. Following the landlord’s inspection of the property a job was raised on 2 August 2022 to trace and check for leaks in the wet room. The job was attended on 10 August 2022 with the plumber reporting back to the landlord that the kitchen ceiling would need to be removed to investigate the leak.
  4. On 11 August 2022 the landlord raised a job for a plasterer and plumber to attend together and remove a section of the kitchen ceiling so the plumber can trace the leak. This was raised on a three working day priority which was appropriate and inline with the landlord’s policies.
  5. The plasterer attended on 12 August 2022 and the plumber attended on 15 August 2022. The plumber reported back to the landlord that they were unable to get access to the property and as such the repair was cancelled. The landlord raised the job again on 18 August 2022. The plasterer attended again on 19 August 2022 and attended with a plumber on 22 August 2022. The plasterer attended alone again on 23 and 25 August 2022.
  6. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why so many appointments for the plasterer were required. Its records do not include notes on what occurred at each appointment other than that it was unable to gain access on 15 August 2022. Notes for the repair as a whole state ‘plumber has referred this job back to client as the wet room floor has to come up to try and find the leak. I can not do plastering until leak is sorted.’
  7. Given this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this many appointments were unnecessary and caused inconvenience to the resident. The notes on the job raised state that a plasterer and plumber should attend together. As such it was reasonable for the resident to have expected one appointment where the trades attended together. This shows poor management of the repair and record keeping which should have highlighted the need to carry out the inspection at the same time.
  8. On 30 August 2022 the landlord raised a job to remove the wet room floor to trace and remedy the leak. This was raised as a 25 working day repair. However, it is noted the landlord’s repairs clarification document confirms a leaking or damaged “altro” floor repair should be ordered on a 7 working day priority. As such and given the delay in the initial assessment and multiple appointments throughout August it was unreasonable that it was not.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 2 September 2022 to make a formal complaint. In response to this a further inspection was undertaken by a maintenance surveyor who could not locate the source of the leak at the appointment. However, on 11 October 2022 the landlord attended and repaired a leak from the shower and on 13 October 2022 it renewed the bathroom flooring. These works should have been completed within 7 working days, of being raised on 30 August 2022 however were issued on a 25 working day priority. Even so it is noted that works were completed 7 working days outside of the landlord’s 25 working day target. It is also noted that this is 17 weeks since the resident notified the landlord of an issue on 15 June 2022 and 11 weeks since the landlord identified a leak on 28 July 2022. This was an unreasonable delay which resulted in detriment to the resident. The landlord has said that at this time it believed the leak to have been resolved.
  10. On 15 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her wet room was again leaking into her kitchen. The landlord attended the same day, however, the only notes recorded by its contractor were that works were ‘completed’. As such it is unclear what works took place and is an example of poor record keeping from the landlord. On 17 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again to report the leak had become worse than ever. The landlord attended on 18 November 2022 and works were raised to remedy a crack on the bathroom basin and reseal the shower.
  11. The landlord attended on 25 November 2022 to reseal the shower, on 7 December 2022 to renew the basin and on 9 December 2022 to renew the bathroom flooring. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs clarification document.
  12. It is noted the landlord responded to the recurrence of the leak in an efficient manner. However, overall it was too slow to respond to the resident’s initial reports, did not treat the job with the priority it deserved and failed to undertake works in its target timescales. The repairs were uncoordinated and the poor record keeping contributed to the delays and failures set out in this report. This significantly impacted the resident in her home for the duration the leak was on-going. All of this amounts to maladministration and a series of orders are set out below.

Kitchen tiles

  1. Following an inspection of the resident’s property on 28 July 2022 the landlord raised works to secure loose tiles in the resident’s kitchen on 2 August 2022. This was raised on a 25 working day priority, which was appropriate and inline with the landlord’s repairs clarification document.
  2. On 16 August 2022 the landlord attended to secure the tiles. This was appropriate and inside of the timescales outlined. However, it was identified a number of tiles would need to be replaced. The operative did not have an exact match so informed the resident he would try to locate some. There is no evidence the operative informed the resident when he would be returning. The operative returned on 5 September 2022 which is one working day outside the landlord’s 25 working days timescale from when it became aware of the works on 28 July 2022. The operative reported back to the landlord that the resident had requested to wait until she received a response to her complaint for the tiling to go ahead.
  3. As part of its final response, on 19 October 2022, the landlord has said that “these works have now been re-raised with the instruction to secure loose wall tiles and replace the cracked tiles with feature tiles going across the cooker space.” The landlord’s contractor reported this work was completed on 22 December 2022. The landlord has said that the delay in completing these works was due to working around the resident’s availability. However, these repairs were raised on 21 September 2022 with a 25 working day priority. The landlord’s records do not indicate what difficulties it had accessing the property or contain details of what restrictions the resident placed on her availability. As such, it is the Ombudsman’s view, that these delays were unreasonable.
  4. As part of her complaint to this Service the resident has said that the tiling was not repaired. The resident reports that the contractor instead removed all tiling from the walls. This was unreasonable and not in line with the commitments made to the resident in the landlord’s complaint response.
  5. Overall, despite the landlord initially attending to the resident’s kitchen within its stated timescales, it failed to undertake the repair within its stated timescales, commitments were reneged on and the repair has still not been completed as agreed. This amounts to maladministration and a series of orders are set out below.

Fencing

  1. During an inspection of the resident’s property on 8 September 2022, in response to her stage one complaint, the resident raised that she would like a fence installed. The inspector informed the resident he would speak to his manager. However, the inspector never responded to the resident to confirm the outcome of the request. This was unreasonable and resulted in the resident having to raise the issue in her stage two complaint in order to get an answer.
  2. In its final response to the resident the landlord has said that “as the area is already enclosed by a brick wall a fence would not be installed to heighten the level of the boundary.” This was the landlord’s decision to take and there is nothing to suggest its decision is contrary to any of its only policies or legislation.
  3. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident amounts to service failure and an order has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged kitchen tiles.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a fence.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following actions within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation (any compensation previously paid at stage one or two can be deducted from this total) which includes;-
      1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident through the landlord’s handling of repairs to the leak.
      2. £100 for its failure to undertake kitchen tiling repairs as agreed.
      3. £50 for time and trouble chasing a response to her fencing enquiry.
    2. Inspect the resident’s kitchen and arrange works for the cooker area splashback to be retiled.
    3. Contact the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and advise her of the option to submit a formal complaint concerning the leak which occurred in August 2023.

Recommendations

  1. In her complaint to this Service the resident has said that she requested a fence as broken bottles and used needles have been thrown into her garden. The resident has also said that because of the low wall people cut across her garden. Given this, the landlord should carry out a risk assessment against any previous reports of ASB from the resident and use this risk assessment to reassess the resident’s request for fencing.
  2. The landlord should read the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management report and consider its recommendations in light of the findings in this case.