Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202316004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316004

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

12 June 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to an external wall.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow and is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord uses an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) who has delegated responsibility for providing housing management and maintenance services on behalf of the local council. The tenancy commenced in December 2014.
The landlord said it was not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident; however, during the course of this investigation, the resident disclosed that she is disabled with several disabilities including osteoporosis.
On 14 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord via letter. The resident said:
1. Despite numerous reports, she had not received a response regarding the completion of repair works to the external wall adjacent to her home.
2. There was rubble falling out of the wall onto a public footpath. She said this was dangerous because she had multiple disabilities, which included osteoporosis, and she was at risk of her bones breaking if she fell.
3. Making a complaint to customer services made no difference and she had experienced panic attacks while waiting on the telephone for the repairs team to answer.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. Following the resident’s complaint, an inspection was not completed within 28-days because of workloads and staffing issues.
2. Clarification was required regarding the ownership of the wall because it was identified as a retaining wall for the public highway.
3. Subsequently, the wall was confirmed to be the landlord’s responsibility, and an inspection was raised with the instruction that all works were to be identified and completed.
4. It apologised for the lack of communication regarding the inspection and subsequent delay.
On 3 May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that repairs had still not been carried out and that it was a health and safety risk.
On 30 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The wall was first reported in November 2022 and was referred to its contractor. In January 2023, the resident raised the repair again as she was concerned the wall would fall over.
2. Upon an inspection from its contractor, it was referred back to the landlord for investigation and a further inspection. It said the further inspection had not been completed because ownership of the wall was in doubt and that there was a large volume of other maintenance inspections at that time.
3. The stage 1 response indicated that an inspection would be prioritised; however, after 20-working days, the inspection had still not taken place.
4. It acknowledged the length of time taken to inspect the wall and apologised that it had not been completed sooner. However, no health and safety concerns, or requests to prioritise, were identified by the contractor.
5. It should have updated the resident sooner regarding the delay for an inspection and apologised for a lack of communication.
6. An inspection of the wall took place on 17 May 2023. It was reported that there were no works required as the wall is substantial with no apparent issues.
7. A second opinion was sought, and it was decided that options would be considered to prevent the gravel from falling out of the wall cavity and onto the pavement as it is a retaining wall for the road above. It said it would update the resident once a course of action was agreed.
8. It offered £50 compensation for inconvenience caused to the resident for having to chase the inspection.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she remained unhappy about the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 response and because of time taken to complete the repair. She also said that the matter had caused her anxiety and stress.
As part of the landlord’s information to us, it advised that it had reviewed the case and its subsequent responses within the complaints process. It said that it had identified failings. Specifically, it:
1. Apologised that the failings were not identified sooner and that the length of time since the resident first reported the wall and its completion spanned 11 months, which was unacceptable.
2. Acknowledged the resident’s multiple calls to report the wall and said that, while the reports were attended to by the contractor, they were also referred back each time and that it took 4-months to request the highways team to inspect the wall.
3. Confirmed that it did not believe the wall to be a hazard, yet this was not reported back to the resident until May 2023.
4. Said it should have provided a timescale for the inspection within the stage 1 response letter and a timescale for the update in its stage 2 response.
5. Acknowledged that it did not inform the resident of a delay to the completion of works in August 2023 and that it required a further 3 weeks to complete the repairs.
6. Confirmed in recognition of the failings a further £350 compensation was offered in addition to the £50 already offered at Stage 2. The total compensation offered was £400, which comprised of:
  1. £250 for the delay in inspecting and completing the works to the wall.
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failures.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience of chasing an inspection.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is evident that the resident has concerns regarding the footpath adjacent to her home, however it is not clear if this is the landlords responsibility to repair or if this is the local authority. A recommendation has been made to provide this information to the resident. She has also recently told us of her concerns regarding the repairs that have been completed to the wall.
It is not evident that these issues have been investigated at stage 1 and 2 by the landlord. Therefore, these issues are outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident should contact the landlord to make a complaint about these issues which could then be brought to either the Ombudsman or Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSO) if the path is the under the local authorities ownership, if she remains unsatisfied.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

External wall

The landlord’s repair clarification document states that repair requests are given 1 of 3 classifications: responsive repair, programmed replacement, or planned repair. Responsive repairs are categorised by urgency and are listed as emergency, urgent, priority, or routine, with various timescales from 24 hours for an emergency to 25 working days for a routine repair.
On 13 October 2022, the resident reported a repair that was required to a retaining wall adjacent to her property. The landlord, its contractor, and the local authority completed a number of inspections:
1. On 30 November 2022, an inspection took place and confirmed that the concrete retaining wall that borders the highway was letting rubble fall through the gaps onto the pathway. The landlord’s contractor clarified that it had no health and safety concerns, but that the wall may require some repairs and re-pointing.
2. On 23 January 2023, the resident reported the repair again. The landlord’s contractor re-inspected on 24 January 2023 and referred back again to the landlord with the same outcome.
3. On 21 February 2023, an inspection was carried out by a Senior Bridge Engineer. They said the wall appeared stable but noted that debris was falling through the ‘criblock’ retaining wall onto the footpath. It was suggested that the wall could be faced with paving slabs or bricks to prevent further debris from falling through to the footpath or alternatively, the debris could be regularly removed.
4. On 17 May 2023, another inspection took place by a surveyor which confirmed that there were no issues with the wall, it was substantial, and there were no other issues apparent.
5. On 25 July 2023, the landlord inspected with its contractor and agreed to fit mesh to the wall opposite the dwellings to prevent loose stones entering the footpath and to clear any remaining loose stones.
The landlord’s repair clarification document states that if a boundary wall of stone construction is reported as dangerous, leaning, or collapsed, an order will be raised to make safe within 24 hours. In this case, the resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2022 and stated that she thought the wall was potentially dangerous. She also explained her vulnerabilities in relation to her concerns. However, an inspection did not take place until 30 November 2022. This was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 30 November 2022, an inspection confirmed that there were no health and safety concerns. However, this was not communicated to the resident until 30 May 2023. This was unreasonable and the landlord should have provided this information at the earliest opportunity, which would have eased the resident’s concerns and managed her expectations.
The contractor advised the landlord in October 2022 to confirm with the local council the ownership of the wall. The landlord did not seek to confirm responsibility until February 2023 which was 4-months later. This delay to establish ownership and therefore responsibility, was unreasonable.
It is evidenced that the resident made numerous attempts to raise and progress the repair with the landlord both by phone initially and subsequently by letter. This has inevitably caused a significant level of inconvenience and frustration, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s failings to identify any works required until 9 months later.
On 25 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the works would be completed by 30 August 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2023, which was the day the works were completed and apologised that the completion had passed the estimated target date. It said this was because of the contractor and therefore out of its control. It was good practice of the landlord to have agreed its actions and timescales and confirmed these in writing; however, it should have informed the resident sooner of the expected delays.
The repair works were completed on 21 September 2023, this was 11-months after the resident first reported the repair. The landlord failed to complete the repair in line with its timescales as per policy, which has caused the resident considerable inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing the repairs.
In summary, throughout this complaint, the landlord has failed to effectively communicate with the resident and failed to meet its repair responsibilities in terms of timescales. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had to contact the landlord regarding the repairs a number of times for a repair to be actioned.
The landlord has subsequently acknowledged that its original offer of £50 compensation was inadequate given the failings it has since acknowledged. The landlord informed us that it had reviewed its offer of compensation to put things right regarding its handling of the repair to an external wall and increased its offer of redress to £300.
The increased level of compensation is in keeping with our remedies guidance and we would have found reasonable redress, but we have considered that the landlord made the revised compensation offer after its stage 2 final response. It should not take a resident to escalate their complaint to this service for a landlord to act. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
Given the failings identified, a finding of maladministration has been made. While the landlord’s offer has not been accepted as reasonable redress, we have made a matching order for £300 compensation on the same basis as the issues identified by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlords ‘your comments count’ policy states that the resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such. All complaints are acknowledged within 2 days and the investigating officer will speak to the resident to discuss the complaint in detail. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10-working days and stage 2 within 20-working days of acknowledgement.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlords to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. In accordance with its relevant complaints policy, the landlord committed to the expectations of the Code.
On 18 October 2022, the resident sent a letter which clearly stated her dissatisfaction. This should have been treated as the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Instead, the resident had to complain again on 14 March 2023 adding the words “formal complaint” for it to be treated as such. This was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s policy.
It is evident that because the resident’s preferred method of communication was post, this did incur some delays; however, overall, the landlord responded to the resident in line with its policy regarding its acknowledgement of the complaint and its responses to both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will be offered where it has failed to meet service standards or where our actions have resulted in inconvenience, suffering, or loss. It has 4 categories where compensation is considered. These are quantifiable loss, lost opportunity, loss of non-monetary benefit, and distress and impact.
The landlord’s offer following the internal complaints process was to apologise and offer compensation for its complaint handling failures of £100. This demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this in accordance with its policy.
This offer of compensation is in keeping with our remedies guidance and we would have found reasonable redress, but we have to consider that the landlord made the offer of compensation after its stage 2 final response and only after the involvement of this service. As stated earlier in the report, in such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
Given the failings identified, a finding of service failure has been made. While the landlord’s offer has not been accepted as reasonable redress, the Ombudsman has made a matching order for £100 compensation on the same basis as the issues identified by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to an external wall adjacent to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £400 compensation as offered post internal complaints process.
3. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
The landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its offer.

Recommendations

Confirm with the resident whose responsibility the pathway adjacent to her home is and provide the relevant details to enable a complaint to be raised, if necessary.