From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202337480)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337480

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

21 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The rewiring of the resident’s property.
    2. Its contractors leaving the property in a mess after the rewiring works, and the resident’s reports of damaged and missing items.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
  2. On 13 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out a pre-works induction with the resident with regards to carrying out a rewiring of his property. The resident signed a disclaimer stating that he understood that the contractor would not be responsible for any loss or damage during the works and that he would need to pack away any items of value.
  3. A subcontractor carried out the rewiring works at the resident’s property on 18 May 2023. On 19 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord’s main contractor that his property had been left in disarray and covered in dust. The contractor attended the same day and put back the furniture and cleaned away dust.
  4. On 5 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord via telephone. He said he had not been told that he would need to move furniture. He said he had left the property to allow the subcontractors to carry out the work. He confirmed he was not offered any help to move his furniture back into place and his property was left in a mess. He advised the subcontractors’ operatives had damaged items of fishing tackle and had broken and removed a mirror from his property.
  5. The landlord’s contractor issued a stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It said:
    1. Works were needed to bring the electrics at the resident’s property up to standard.
    2. It had made the resident aware that rewiring work could cause dust to settle after the works were complete. It said its contractors had cleaned the property, but it appreciated that there may have been more dust.
    3. The resident told the contractor that its subcontractors had damaged his fishing rod during the rewiring works. The contractor said it contacted a local store which advised that the make and model of the damaged fishing rod had been discontinued. The contractor confirmed it would agree to replace the fishing rod on a like-for-like basis. However, the resident had told the contractor that he would like a rod that cost significantly more than the rod which was damaged. It advised that the resident could raise a liability claim via the landlord’s insurance team in relation to the damaged fishing rod, if he preferred.
    4. The subcontractor had tried to contact the resident multiple times to come to an agreement about the amount it was willing to reimburse him for the fishing rod. However, the resident had said he did not wish to speak to anyone until he heard back from the landlord.
    5. It had looked at photos of the property taken prior to the works being carried out but had not identified the mirror the resident had said was missing. It advised him he could raise a liability insurance claim for the missing mirror via the landlord’s insurance team.
  6. On 11 October 2023, the resident’s MP forwarded correspondence from the resident to the landlord. The resident said the landlord’s communication prior to the works starting had been poor. He advised that an operative had turned up at his property without notice to fit a switch to his consumer unit, on a day he was due to go to hospital. He reiterated that the subcontractors had left his property in a mess and had damaged items. He said neither the landlord, nor its subcontractors had carried out an inspection of the rewiring works after completion.
  7. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 6 November 2023, to ask it to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 November 2023, to confirm it would issue a complaint response within 20 working days.
  8. On 6 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. It apologised that it had not escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure sooner. It said it had missed an opportunity to do so when the resident’s MP contacted it. It advised it would issue reminders to staff and would review its procedures to ensure this did not happen in future.
    2. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the state of his property after the rewiring works. It said that its contractors would normally reattend the property after works were completed. It had not been able to establish why this had not happened. However, it confirmed that its subcontractors had returned to the property to put furniture back and clean up, the day after the works were completed.
    3. Its contractor had asked the resident to contact it in relation to it reimbursing him for the damaged fishing rods. It asked the resident to contact the contractor to discuss this further.
    4. It advised the resident to report the mirror and a box of fishing tackle that he said the subcontractors had taken from his property to the police.
    5. The resident had raised further issues about the works in his correspondence with the MP including about the advice he was given prior to the rewiring works starting. It said that as he had not raised these concerns in his stage 1 complaint, it had not investigated these issues. It advised he could raise a separate complaint about these issues if he wished to do so.
  9. On 3 January 2024 the resident complained to the Ombudsman about the damage to his fishing tackle and the items he alleged had been taken by operatives. On 19 May 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman he was unhappy with the quality of the rewiring works.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. In his correspondence with his MP, the resident raised concerns about the contractors’ communication prior to the rewiring works. The resident has also raised concerns about the quality of the rewiring works with the Ombudsman. As the resident did not raise these issues in his stage 1 complaint, the contractor’s communication prior to the rewiring works starting and the quality of the rewiring works, are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. This is because the landlord should be given an opportunity to consider issues raised by a resident at both stages of its complaints procedure prior to the Ombudsman becoming involved. The landlord has advised the resident that he can submit a separate complaint about these issues if he wishes to do so. The resident may be able to bring the separate complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final response to the issues.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the electrical system in the resident’s property in a safe working order. 
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.

Contractors leaving the property in a mess after the rewiring works, and the resident’s reports of damaged and missing items.

  1. We understand it would have been upsetting for the resident to come home and find his property had been left in a mess. The landlord’s contractor acted reasonably in attending the resident’s property to clean-up and to put back furniture as soon as he contacted it to say it had been left in a mess. This demonstrated a willingness to put things right for the resident as soon as possible. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it has learnt from the resident’s complaint and will ensure that residents are present in future when it checks properties after works are completed.
  2. It was appropriate that the landlord’s subcontractor offered to reimburse the resident’s damaged fishing tackle on a like-for-like basis. It would not be expected to reimburse him for more than the cost of the items that had been damaged. This is because when they have damaged a resident’s items, landlords and contractors are only expected to put residents back into the position they would have been in, had the damage not occurred. The landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident to contact the contractor to further discuss its offer to reimburse him for the damage to his fishing tackle.
  3. The contractor acted reasonably in advising the resident that he had the option to submit a liability claim to the landlord’s insurance department for the damaged items if he preferred. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. The landlord’s website states that it deals with some claims internally and some claims it refers on to its external insurers. If any claim was dealt with by an insurance team internal to the landlord, the resident could complain to the landlord if he felt it had not dealt with his claim correctly. Once any complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, he may be able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.  If, however, a liability claim was dealt with by an insurer external to the landlord, it would be outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate as the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of external insurers, only at the actions of the landlord.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the police about any items he believed had been stolen by the subcontractors’ operatives. This is because allegations of theft are a criminal matter and should therefore be investigated by the police, not the landlord or its contractors.
  5. The resident complained that the landlord had not inspected the works after completion. Landlords are not obliged to post-inspect all works and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident reported any issues with the electrics at his property after the rewiring work. The landlord would only be expected to inspect and repair any issues with the electrical system if the resident reported that there had been problems.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for missing an opportunity to issue a stage 2 complaint response to him sooner. In the resident’s correspondence with his MP, he expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues he had raised in his stage 1 complaint. It would have been reasonable therefore for the landlord to respond to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in addition to responding to his MP. It is positive that the landlord has recognised this and has said that it will issue reminders to staff on how to handle complaints and will review its procedures.
  7. Overall, the landlord has acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the landlord and the contractors do not need to do anything further in this regard. The resident can contact the landlord’s contractor if he wishes to discuss further its offer to reimburse his damaged fishing tackle or he can contact the landlord’s insurance team regarding the fishing rods and mirror.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the rewiring of his property, is out of the Service’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of its contractors leaving the property in a mess after the rewiring works and the resident’s reports of damaged and missing items, satisfactorily.