Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (202402589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402589

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

6 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of recurring leaks into her property and the damage caused.

Background

2. The resident has lived in a flat under a secure tenancy since 19 August 2020. The landlord uses an arms-length management company who has delegated responsibility for providing housing management and maintenance services on its behalf. The resident appointed a relative to act as her representative throughout this complaint. For the purposes of this report, the resident and her representative will be referred to collectively as “the resident”.
3. In the period leading up to the complaint the resident reported multiple incidents of uncontained leaks coming through the ceiling of her flat. She told the landlord on several occasions she believed her neighbour in the flat above was causing the leaks by leaving water running. It responded by attending each report, containing the leaks and repairing any damage caused.
4. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint during a phone call to the landlord on 15 January 2024. Its notes from the call state she said there had been 7 leaks at her property since she moved in. She said all the leaks had been caused by her upstairs neighbour and she felt it was not doing anything to tackle their behaviour.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024. It said it was aware of 6 leaks at the resident’s property and the first was reported in September 2022. It said it had responded appropriately to each one, but acknowledged its contractors had delayed passing on her concerns about the source of the leak. It apologised, explained it was offering support to her neighbour, arranged repairs to her kitchen ceiling and offered £350 compensation.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She felt the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously and had failed to acknowledge the impact the issue was having. She raised concerns that the water from the leaks was “contaminated” because of the poor condition of the neighbour’s property. She was also dissatisfied with its compensation. She asked it to either ensure there would be no further leaks or move her to an alternative property.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 April 2024. It said it had reviewed its stage 1 complaint investigation and response and found it to be appropriate. It explained it had no concerns that the water was contaminated. It said it could not rehouse her, or guarantee that future leaks would not occur, but that it was continuing to support the neighbour. However, it additionally offered to redecorate any of the water damage in her flat as a goodwill gesture.
8. The resident remained unhappy and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord’s repairs following the leaks had been of a poor quality and the property now had issues with mould. She said it had not acknowledged the impact the leaks had on her wellbeing. She wanted the landlord to either confirm the leaks would no longer occur or, alternatively, rehouse her.
9. The landlord subsequently informed the Service that the resident’s upstairs neighbour passed away in February 2025. Therefore, it understood the leak issue was now resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. Part of the resident’s complaint is about the impact the leaks have had on her mental health. Although the Service can consider the general distress and inconvenience, we cannot assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. That is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue the option.
11. When the resident brought her complaint to the Service, she complained about the quality of the landlord’s repairs following the leaks. These issues were not part of her original complaint to the landlord. Because of that they will not be considered in this investigation.
12. If she has concerns about the standard of work completed by the landlord, or about other new issues the resident needs to raise a new complaint with it and allow it the opportunity to respond. If, after completing its internal complaints process, she remains unhappy she may then bring this complaint to us.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports for recurring leaks into her property and the damage caused

13. The landlord’s repairs guide puts repairs into 4 different categories: emergency, urgent, priority and routine. It gives each category a different timescale for works to be completed. For emergency repairs it is a timescale of 24 hours, and for urgent repairs it is 3 working days. Its guide states repairs involving major leaks, or where this is a health and safety risk, are treated as an emergency. Works such as plastering are treated as a routine repair with a 25 working day timescale for completion.
14. When a landlord identifies failures, our role is to consider whether the redress it offers to put things right and resolve the complaint are satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own remedies guidance and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
15. In both the resident’s complaints to the landlord she said she was concerned about the number of leaks she had dealt with at her property. She said all the leaks had been caused by her upstairs neighbour, who she understood to be vulnerable. She questioned what action it was taking to deal with the neighbour’s behaviour. At stage 2 she said she had concerns that the water leaking through was contaminated, due to the poor condition of her neighbour’s home. She also said she felt it had not taken her complaint seriously at stage 1 and found the compensation it had offered “insulting”. She wanted the landlord to either confirm no more leaks would happen, or for it to rehouse the resident.
16. In response to her complaints the landlord explained how many leak reports it had received and that it had attended to each of them within its repair timescales. It said each leak was dealt with and the damage caused was repaired in good time. It acknowledged that its operatives did not report back her concerns about her neighbour being the cause of the leaks to the appropriate team until it visited, following a leak, in October 2023. It recognised this was a failing, apologised and offered £350 compensation. It also said one of its teams were now offering support to her neighbour, and working with other agencies to help prevent further leaks.
17. The evidence supports the landlord’s explanations. It shows the landlord responded to each of the resident’s reports of a leak within 24hrs. This was in line with its repairs guide. It also shows that following making the leak-affected areas safe, it followed up with checks and remedial works, including arranging an electrician to check electrics, and repairs to the ceiling including replastering. Again, these works were all completed within the timeframes set out its repair guide.
18. The records show the resident raised concerns about her neighbour causing the leaks in April 2023. That information was not passed back to the relevant team to deal with. After the contractors attended again in October 2023 it correctly passed the information this back to the relevant team, who then started taking action. This included arranging regular visits to them and joint working with external agencies. Poor communication between its teams had led to delays starting this support and it was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised this in its complaint responses. It apologised and explained what it had learnt from the failure and how it had improved its processes going forward. This was appropriate for it to do and in line with our dispute resolution principles
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the water being contaminated. It explained how it had investigated her concerns, and confirmed it had no evidence indicating such an issue had occurred. Nothing seen in this investigation contradicts its explanation.  
20. The landlord offered £350 compensation for the poor communication from its contractors. That amount reasonably reflected the delay in the landlord taking action and demonstrated its appreciation of the resident’s overall frustration. It was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints where there have been significant failings, but which the landlord has identified and corrected. It was also good practice for it to offer redecoration of areas of the resident’s flat affected by the leaks. It was not obliged to do that, as the terms of her tenancy agreement state internal decorations are the tenant’s responsibility, but did so in recognition of the distress the issue had caused.
21. The resident asked the landlord to either promise there would be no further leaks or rehouse her. The landlord responded appropriately by explaining it could not give such a guarantee and that it could not automatically rehouse her. Nonetheless, it offered advice on the moving options available to her and support with applications if needed. Its response was appropriate given the circumstances and it was open, transparent and realistic in what it could, and could not, reasonably achieve.
22. In summary, poor internal communication caused a delay in the landlord starting support and intervention with the resident’s neighbour. However, apart from this failing, it took reasonable steps to try and resolve the cause of the leaks and ensure the resident’s home was made safe and repaired in good time. It appropriately recognised its failings in its complaint responses, apologised, and offered compensation that was reasonable in the circumstances. It’s complaint responses and remedies were in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and the Code.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

24. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the £350 compensation it offered to the resident.