Bpha Limited — case 202318157

REPORT COMPLAINT 202318157 bpha Limited 20 March 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 condition of the property when it was let and the landlord’s management of subsequent repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff. Background At the time of the events that form the complaint, the resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed house, which she occupies with her young child. The resident’s tenancy began on 26 May 2023. The resident and her child have autism. The landlord is a housing association. The resident reported various repairs issues within the first 3 months of her tenancy, which included: Radiators hanging off the walls and leaking.

Mould and bubbling paint Bathroom tap not working Inadequate units in the kitchen Leaking soil stack in the garden Leaking toilet Damaged sockets On 18 July 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said that the landlord had not communicated with her to get the issues fixed and she had still not been able to move into the property. The resident stated she was concerned about having multiple operatives entering her property due to having autism.

The resident also complained that a staff member had not considered the resident’s needs and had pressured her to sign the tenancy agreement, despite the issues in the property. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 August 2023, in which it stated the following: It would address the conduct issues with the staff member complained about, in line with its HR policy. The void work to the property was signed off by a surveyor and the property was deemed as habitable.

The property was passed to let on 12 May 2023. Its contractor had inspected some of the repairs issues the resident raised, replaced a damaged socket, inspected the bathroom extractor fan and confirmed there was no need to fit an extractor fan in the kitchen. It said the contractor would fit trunking to cables. A repair had been raised for the toilet, scheduled for 7 August 2023. A second repair had been raised for the leaking stack pipe and had been scheduled for 12 September 2023.

There was a sufficient number of cupboards in the kitchen for the size of the house and the resident should write to ask permission if she wanted further units installed. It was sorry for the number of repairs the resident had reported since moving into the property, which was below the level of service it wished to give its customers. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 August 2023. The resident said that the property had been signed off as habitable, but she had been required to continue calling and emailing the landlord regarding the issues in the property.

She stated that house was a hazard and there were over 20 problems she had identified. She said that she wanted the landlord to arrange an inspection of the kitchen. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2023. It stated the following: It had held a meeting with the resident on 24 August 2023 to discuss the repairs in the property, which it listed. A member of the landlord’s staff attended the property on 25 August 2023 to assess the additional works, and these were scheduled for 5 and 19 September 2023.

The works identified were to repair a leaking section of stack pipe, fit a small wall unit in the kitchen and re-seal the bath. It would review its internal processes regarding empty home refurbishments to improve the standard of homes prior to letting in the future. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 10 September 2023 and asked why the landlord had not considered refunding her for the paint used to decorate, as discussed during the meeting.

The resident stated she was unable to move into the property until 6 August 2023. She said that the staff member forced her to sign the tenancy even though she knew that the house still needed work. The landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident on 12 September 2023, in which it stated that: An issue with a wall mounted kitchen cupboard was not identified during the void inspection. None of the issues in the property would have prevented the resident from moving in.

It would increase the amount of compensation offered to £150 to cover the costs of paint the resident bought to decorate. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 and 30 October 2023. She stated that works had been completed but she was waiting for the landlord to repair the windows and roof. She said that the landlord was ignoring her and she was unhappy with how it had treated her as a new tenant. On 5 March 2025, the resident informed us that there were ongoing repairs issues in the property, including: The radiators were rusty and needed replacing.

She said that this was affecting her and her daughter’s health and causing chest infections. The toilet was leaking. She stated that this was fixed previously but was now leaking again. There were leaks by the front door and through the ceiling. There were drainage issues in the bathroom. She stated that an operative plunged the bath but it was still not draining properly. Repairs were required to the windows. The resident said that the communication from the landlord and its contractor about the repairs had been poor.

In order to resolve her complaint, the resident said she wanted the landlord to resolve all the repairs issues in the property. Assessment and findings Scope The resident told us that there are several repairs issues ongoing in the property and she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled these. The evidence indicates that she reported issues with the windows, roof and boiler shortly after the stage 2 response was issued. The resident confirmed that she had made a new complaint to the landlord about its handling of the boiler and radiator issues.

We are not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. The resident can make a further complaint to the landlord about any other more recent issues. She may be able to refer her complaints to us once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The scope of this investigation will therefore consider from May 2023 when the resident’s tenancy began to 12 September 2023 when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

The Ombudsman understands that the resident brought a number of issues to the landlord’s attention in the time period considered by this investigation. The Ombudsman has considered each of these, alongside the actions taken by the landlord, to build a picture of the landlord’s overall handling of the works. However, only events which have been deemed to be the most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation are highlighted in this report. The condition of the property when it was let and the landlord’s management of subsequent repairs.

The landlord’s void lettings standard and scope of works sets out the minimum standard that a void property should reach before it is deemed ready to let. The standard states that the landlord will carry out an initial survey and compile a works schedule. After the works have been completed, it will post inspect the works and sign-off the property as “fit to occupy”. The void lettings standard states that routine checks by its contractor will include checks of toilets, taps, leaks under sinks and basin.

It states that it will conduct a check of the internal property condition in respect of damp and that major cracks/holes and loose plaster should be filled and repaired. The evidence indicates that a void inspection took place on 20 March 2023 and the landlord identified various repairs required in the property. The contractor requested further works to be approved in the property on 26 April 2023. On 12 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that the void property was ready to let.

It has not provided a copy of its final void inspection. The resident stated that she highlighted the repairs issues to the landlord’s staff member when she viewed the property on 26 May 2023. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous notes to reflect what repairs were identified on 23 May 2023. Further, it has not provided evidence to reflect that it took action to address the repairs immediately following this date. The landlord should have taken proactive steps to record the issues identified by the resident and arranged repairs, if required.

The resident requested an update from the landlord on 30 May 2023 and following this, it raised works orders on 30 and 31 May 2023 in relation to radiators hanging off the walls and for extra void works to be carried out. It did not specify what the extra voids works were. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 June 2023 regarding the outstanding repairs. The landlord should have communicated proactively with the resident to provide updates about the repairs. The evidence indicates that the landlord conducted a damp and mould survey on 20 June 2023, which was appropriate.

The survey recommended that an extractor fan should be installed in the kitchen and an air vent fitted to the chimney breast wall. The landlord raised a works order for this the following day. Between 21 and 24 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about various issues in the property. She reported that the kitchen radiator was leaking, only 1 of the bathroom taps was working, the gap in the kitchen was too small for the cooker, a hazard in the garden needed to be removed and she needed additional units in the kitchen to store medication.

She stated that she continued to find problems in the property. The landlord raised a works order for outstanding void works on 29 June 2023. However, the information provided does not specify what repairs this included. The evidence suggests that some works were completed at the beginning of July 2023, including the installation of the fireplace vent. However, on 14 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said that there was still work to be done in the property. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 18 July 2023.

The resident contacted the landlord on the same date and said that the contractor did not have a ticket to install extractor fans or replace wire coverings in the kitchen. It is unclear whether any work was carried out on this date. While the notes of this visit are unclear, it appears that there may have been a failing by the landlord to raise accurate works orders to the contractor for the outstanding jobs. In an email to the Ombudsman dated 23 July 2023, the resident listed 19 issues in the property that she had identified since her tenancy began.

She stated that most of these had been completed, but the following repairs remained outstanding: Vent installation in the kitchen Installation of a cover on the electric meter Installation of a heating dial Leaking pipes in the garden Leaking toilet Floorboard repairs had been half completed. Damage to the garden wall and front of house had been half completed. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said works had been scheduled to repair the toilet and the leaking stack pipe.

The evidence indicates that the toilet repair was completed on 7 August 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord listed several repairs that it had discussed with the resident during the 24 August 2023 meeting. This included trunking for electrical cables, flaking plaster, leaking soil stack and that the sink and bath were slow to drain. The landlord did not state whether all of these repairs had been completed. It said that a further repairs appointment had taken place on 5 September 2023 to repair the leaking section of stack pipe and fit a small wall unit in the kitchen.

The evidence indicates that most of the repairs had been completed by the end of September 2023. On 27 October 2023, the resident informed us that all works were complete apart from to the windows and roof. These issues were reported after the stage 2 response and therefore fall outside of the scope of this investigation. In summary, it is clear that the resident reported various issues in the property between the start of her tenancy and the meeting with the landlord on 24 August 2023.

In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately identified that its service had fallen below the standard expected due to the number of repairs the resident had reported since moving in. It is likely that some of the repairs could not have been identified during the voids inspection. For example, the toilet may not have been leaking at the time. However, issues such as mould and damaged radiators ought to have been dealt with during the voids process, as per the landlord’s lettable standard.

The landlord did not explain why the repairs were not identified during the voids process. The landlord’s repairs records do not provide a clear audit trail of when repairs were reported, inspected and completed. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate and clear records of repairs and provides these to the Ombudsman. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord compiled a schedule of works with clear dates for when repairs would take place. Given the number of repairs reported, this would have been a sensible approach.

The resident was also required to chase the landlord on several occasions for updates on the repairs. Landlords should ensure they maintain regular contact with residents about outstanding repairs. Taking into account the number of repairs issues reported by the resident within the first 3 months of her tenancy, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have completed a post-works inspection after the September 2023 repairs appointments. An inspection could have assessed whether all repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard and whether any issues remained outstanding.

Overall, there were failings by the landlord to identify all repairs during the voids process, keep clear repair records and maintain regular communication with the resident. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It is clear that the resident incurred time and trouble in reporting the issues to the landlord, and she likely experienced distress and inconvenience due to the number of repairs identified at the start of her tenancy.

While the property was deemed habitable by the landlord, the evidence indicates that the repairs resulted in delays in the resident moving into the property. The resident stated that her and her daughter had autism and the ongoing repairs issues were particularly disruptive. There is no evidence that the landlord explored how it could adapt its service to meet the needs of the resident. The landlord identified that there was a failing and made efforts to put things right by offering the resident £150 compensation overall.

This was comprised of £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 to cover the cost of redecorating. However, further compensation should be paid to the resident in order to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused. We have made an order below for additional compensation to be paid the resident. The amount ordered is in line with our remedies guidance for when there were failures which adversely affected the resident. The evidence indicates that the landlord carried out the repairs it stated it would within its stage 2 response.

However, the resident told us that there were still ongoing repairs issues in the property. She said that the toilet was leaking despite the landlord carrying out repairs previously, and that the landlord’s efforts to repair the bathroom drainage had been unsuccessful. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to inspect and repair these issues. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure.

Although the landlord did not consider the complaint at stage 2, there is evidence of a complaint handling failure as it did not provide a satisfactory response to the complaint at stage 1. As such, the landlord’s handling of the staff conduct complaint is within the scope of this investigation. It is not our role to determine whether the staff member was rude or pressured the resident into signing the tenancy agreement. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the staff member’s manager would address the complaint with the staff member in line with its HR policy. The landlord did not state what steps would be taken to investigate the complaint, as per the policy. In order to demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s concerns, the landlord should have explained what actions it had taken to investigate the staff conduct complaint and the outcome of any such investigation within its stage 2 response.

This was a service failure by the landlord. An order has been made below for it to pay compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing. Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let and its management of subsequent repairs. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff.

Orders and recommendations Orders Within 4 weeks, the landlord must: Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, rather than credited to her rent account. The amount is made up as follows: £150 already offered by the landlord at stage 2. £150 for the failures identified regarding the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property when it was let and its management of subsequent repairs.

£100 for the failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of staff. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframe specified. Recommendations It is recommended that the landlord inspects and repairs the issues reported by the resident, as set out in paragraph 11 of this report. It is recommended that the landlord conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of repairs.