bpha Limited (202014080)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014080

BPHA Limited

20 May 2022

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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder complains about the landlord’s handling of their reports of the following defects at the property:
1. Front door seal.
2. Gas meter box.
3. Insulation/sound proofing.
4. Internal doors and doorframes.
The leaseholder complains about the landlord’s overall handling of the formal complaint.
The leaseholder also complains about the handling of other defects at the property and the impact these had, for which they are seeking compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The leaseholder complains about other defect issues, including a faulty shower screen and lack of access to their shower, and that the bicycle shed could not be made use of. In an email to the landlord of May 2021, the leaseholder asked for compensation of £7500 for the impact the landlord’s handling of these defects had caused.
While the leaseholder raised the matter of compensation for a number of issues in their September 2018 complaint to the landlord, this was not raised again in their 30 September 2019 request for escalation, or 1 April 2020 stage two complaint. Therefore, the issues that the leaseholder is seeking compensation for were not the subject of the complaint escalated through the landlord’s complaint process and did not exhaust that process.
The Ombudsman will only investigate complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, complaint 3 is found to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate in line with Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.

Background

Part E of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 states that dwelling-houses, flats and rooms for residential purposes shall be designed and constructed in such a way that they provide reasonable resistance to sound from other parts of the same building and from adjoining buildings.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time of the complaint set out that a full response would be provided to a complaint within ten working days of its acknowledgement letter. It stated, ‘If the issue is complex and needs further time to resolve we will keep the customer informed.’ If the customer was unhappy with the way their complaint had been resolved, they could appeal to a panel hearing within 6 weeks of the formal complaint response. The landlord would then invite the complainant to a panel hearing within 10 days of their appeal being made, with an appeal date of no later than six weeks after their appeal was made.
The landlord has confirmed that it did not have a defects policy in place at the time of the matters complained of.

Summary of events

Relevant records, policies, and procedures were requested from the landlord as part of this investigation. Records available at the time of this investigation are limited, although it has been possible to reach appropriate findings from the evidence available.
The leaseholder raised concerns about a number of defects shortly after moving into the new build property in April 2018. In July 2018 these were logged as a formal complaint by the landlord.
On 31 July 2018 an order was raised to repair damage to two internal doors and door frames downstairs, reported as caused by a carpet fitter.
On 22 September 2018 the leaseholder sent a 66 page ‘summary of complaint’ in which they stated that they were making a compensation claim for reasons including ‘time wasted dealing with these issues’, a claim for the loss of use of parts of the property while defects had been outstanding, and a claim for time wasted moving possessions from one room to another while defects were being fixed. In this letter the leaseholder listed all the defects they had identified, which included, ‘The gas meter is not secured to the wall and the lid is broken.’
The landlord responded on 8 October 2018, stating that it had reviewed the complaint to determine which defects had been remedied and which were outstanding. It said that it would visit the property to produce a final list of outstanding defects to be completed by the original contractor and during the visit it would set a date for the works to be completed. It said that if the contractor was unable to adhere to this, another approved contractor would be employed to complete the works.
The landlord wrote again on 28 October 2018 with a ‘formal complaint outcome’ letter. It listed defects identified at a visit to the property and said these had been raised with the original contractor to rectify within 28 days of 18 October 2018. The landlord said that once carpet had been replaced, it would ‘rectify’ four doors in the living room area.
New carpets were fitted on 22 January 2019, following which the landlord agreed to inspect the four doors. The leaseholder also made the landlord aware at this time that the gas meter cover still required repairing, with the landlord saying that the original contractor had stated that this work had already been carried out.
On 24 January 2019 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder in response to an email they had sent saying that they were referring the matter to the Ombudsman. It explained that the landlord’s complaint procedure must first be completed. The complaint was currently at stage one, with a response due in the next week. If the leaseholder remained dissatisfied, they could then escalate to the final stage of the complaint process, the panel hearing. A copy of the complaint process was provided.
The landlord inspected the doors on 8 February 2019. In June 2019 a contractor visited to inspect and provide a quote for some of the outstanding works, including to the internal doors. That same month the landlord emailed the leaseholder to say it was waiting for one of the replacement doors to be delivered, then would carry out the works, and in July 2019 the contractor attended but reported there was no access. The leaseholder states that they were not made aware of this appointment.
On 30 September 2019 the leaseholder emailed the landlord asking for a final response to their complaint as they considered it had been eighteen months since the landlord had been informed of the defects. They listed the outstanding issues as including several internal doors ‘not meet[ing] building regulations regards to fire requirements’, living room cupboard doors and the gas meter box.
The landlord replied that it had been let down by a number of its maintenance contractors through non-performance and quality issues but was working hard to remedy this. It said that it would be meeting a new repairs and maintenance contractor, that the works required at the property were ‘a top priority’, and it would be in contact later that week to state which works the new contractor could complete.
An ‘end of defects inspection sheet’ dated 14 January 2020 set out that:

The front door seals had ‘come adrift’ and required replacing.
The ‘gas meter box needs fixing flush with wall properly and cover has broken, possible whole new box required.’
The internal door issue was, ‘…still in abeyance with leaseholder and LW.’

The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 16 January 2020 following the defects inspection, detailing that issues discussed included:
1. The gas meter box
2. Two door frames needed to be dropped, and six doors replaced. The leaseholder noted that the landlord had offered for the leaseholder to organise this work themselves and was awaiting an email with more details.
3. Internal walls and ceiling had no sound proofing.
4. Damage to the front door seals, which the landlord had agreed to remedy.
In response the landlord:
1. Confirmed the gas meter box was included in the defects report, and it should be fixed securely back, with a new lid.
2. Asked the leaseholder to keep it updated on their decision regarding the doors.
3. Said that, regarding the insulation/sound proofing, ‘We are currently looking through the regs to interpret. The build has currently been built to NHBC standard and Passed BCB sign off. For the purpose of a single abode dwelling, it has been built correctly.’
4. Confirmed that the front door seals were included in the defects report.
In reply the leaseholder said that they did not want to engage with a ‘tug-of-war’ over the sound proofing issue and they had consulted a RICS Surveyor who had provided approved Document E, specifying current building regulations on resistance to the passage of sound. The leaseholder said, ‘This document clearly stipulates which type of sound proofing is required in different types of walls and ceilings…At this moment all I need from you is to give me BPHA’s Final Decision regards the lack of inadequate sound proofing in my property and we can take it from there.’
On 17 January 2020 the landlord emailed that it had been unable to find contractors to carry out the door works, but it could fund the leaseholder to procure the door works by a contractor that they trusted. It said that it had already ordered the doors and could have them delivered to the leaseholder. The leaseholder replied that they did not have the time or knowledge to employ a suitable contractor.
On 21 January 2020 the landlord emailed the leaseholder stating that it was willing to consult with the leaseholder’s RICS surveyor to discuss the internal wall construction and insulation issue, and asked for their contact details.
On 10 February 2020 the leaseholder emailed with an official complaint about a lack of sound insulation in the property. They said that the local authority’s Building Control had stated that by the current building regulations the sound proofing between the ground floor ceiling and first floor floorboards in a new build house was a 100 mm mineral acoustic wool. The landlord responded that the insulation provided to the partition walls within the property complied with building regulations. It said, ‘I have contacted [the organisation] who undertake building control inspections on behalf of Cambridge City Council and they would investigate...’ The landlord asked to share the leaseholder’s contact details.
In a follow up email of 19 February 2020 the landlord said that it had spoken to the organisation and they had asked for the name of the person who told the leaseholder that there should be insulation between ground floor ceiling and first floor floorboards. It said, ‘If you cannot confirm this then we cannot take your investigation further as I am still happy with my interpretation of the Building Regulations that insulation should not be provided between the ground floor ceiling and first floor floorboards within a house.’
The leaseholder provided the name which had been requested, and the landlord replied saying this would be passed on, adding ‘In the meantime, as I believe we are at an impasse, I think it could be advisable to pass the issue back to the original ‘Approved Inspector’...If you are in agreement, I will contact NHBC Building Control for their determination.’
On 3 March 2020 the leaseholder emailed the landlord about a contractor attendance the previous day for the door works, stating that the contractor had accused them of being ‘fussy’. They said that the doors ordered were the wrong ones, and the contractor was not qualified by his own admission to complete any of the jobs and tried to persuade the leaseholder not to have the works to the doors carried out. The leaseholder also asked for an update on the sound proofing issue.
The landlord replied on 6 March 2020 that it had spoken to the contractor, and their version of events was that they wanted to carry out the work but the leaseholder had refused to have the works undertaken and asked the contractor to leave. The landlord said, ‘I feel bpha have worked hard to address and resolve your concerns with you over the last 20 months. Your initial complaint was raised due to the number of outstanding defects that had not been corrected…A large quantity of the defects have been actioned…’
The landlord listed four jobs which were outstanding, which included ‘Replacing/making good/rehang internal doors to the hallway cupboard, living room cupboard, kitchen, utility and WC’. It said that it had tried to address these on 2 March 2020 and offered to pay £2,096 for the leaseholder procure their own contractor and arrange for the works to be undertaken.
The landlord concluded that it had exhausted all avenues and did not consider it was able to resolve the complaint to the leaseholder’s satisfaction. It invited the leaseholder to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint process.
In response on 10 March 2020 the leaseholder asked why it had taken nearly two years to rectify the four defects outstanding. They said that it was not possible for them to have refused to allow the works to go ahead, as the contractor did not have the right doors/right number of doors, and decided to leave himself. The leaseholder asked the landlord to verify these discussions with the contractor once more.
On 23 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder, explaining that it had spoken again to the contractor who had confirmed their version of events that they were asked to leave the property, and had also said that they were not willing to undertake the works due to the leaseholder’s ‘unrealistic expectations’. The landlord would not procure another contractor for these works as it had already done so three times and had offered £2,096 to the leaseholder so that they could arrange this themselves. If the leaseholder did not want to accept this payment, they could escalate the complaint to stage two, explaining why the matter had not been resolved.
The landlord said that it had also investigated the leaseholder’s concerns about insufficient sound proofing and repeated its view that there should not be any insulation between the ground floor ceiling and first floor floorboards. NHBC would not investigate this as the property was now within the structural warranty phase. If the leaseholder wanted to pursue this matter, it was open to them to instruct a RICS surveyor to confirm their concerns that the insulation in the property was insufficient.
The leaseholder requested escalation to stage two of the complaint process on 1 April 2020. The issues listed as outstanding included the internal doors, missing sound insulation, gas meter box not fitted flush to the wall, and front door seal damaged. The landlord acknowledged this on 6 April 2020.
The landlord has advised that the final stage of its complaint procedure comprised an in-person complaint panel. The leaseholder had said that they did not wish for this to be held virtually, and wanted a face-to-face meeting, but this had not been possible because of Covid-19. It had therefore been unable to provide a final response but had updated the leaseholder via email.
On 9 December 2020 the landlord emailed the leaseholder acknowledging that the complaint had been open longer than it had hoped ‘due to the initial and second Covid lockdown.’ It said that an internal meeting had been held to ascertain progress with the issues raised and the following had been agreed:
1. Gas Meter Box – The lid had been replaced and it did not intend to carry out any further works to the meter box, and there were no health and safety issues.
2. Insulation – this had already been addressed at the beginning of 2020, and the landlord would not be re-investigating the matter.
3. Work to doors/frames – The landlord stated, ‘We have made every attempt to bring back the contractors to resolve the concerns…but unfortunately due to the circumstances they faced when visiting you they refuse to carry out any work in your home.’ It suggested therefore that it cover the costs (in line with a quote it had received for £1,485) so that the leaseholder could resolve the matter to their satisfaction.
4. Door seal – the landlord said it would continue to chase the original contractor regarding these items. It said, ‘We intend to put them on notice and if the work is not completed within 3 weeks we will ask our own contractors if they would be able to carry out the works.’
The leaseholder replied on 22 January 2021 that the sum of £1,485 was outdated because it had been agreed at the end of defects meeting in January 2020 that lounge double doors would also be replaced, increasing the number of doors from three to five. They said, ‘If BPHA is not able to deliver doors and there is no supplier for matching doors all the internal doors will be replaced with new matching ones. Please, supply us with relevant information regards the doors to finalise the new quotation from the carpenter. The new quotation will be then sent to BPHA for approval.’
The leaseholder approached the Ombudsman in March 2021, explaining that they had requested escalation of the complaint in March 2020 but this had not happened due to Covid-19. They set out their outstanding issues as follows:
1. The landlord had not addressed the lack of insulation in the property.
2. The landlord had not replaced or refitted the gas meter box which they explained was not fitted properly and flush to the wall, exposing gas pipes, which was a potential hazard.
On 12 March 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to provide its final response to these matters. In its subsequent stage two response dated 26 March 2021 the landlord noted this was the final response to the complaint logged on 26 July 2018. It said that it had been keen to carry out a stage two panel hearing as the leaseholder had requested, but it had not been possible due to Covid-19 restrictions. It noted that the outstanding matters had been discussed with the leaseholder on 18 February 2021 and subsequent emails set out the action being taken. It confirmed this was as follows:
1. Gas meter box: Longer screws had been installed, and this satisfactorily resolved the matter. The landlord did not consider that the box presented a hazard, though would investigate further if the leaseholder was able to detail any specific safety concerns.
2. Front door seal: The landlord apologised that work had not gone ahead to fit this as two different seals that had been ordered did not fit. It noted that contractors had requested a photograph of the serial number from the door to ensure that the correct seal could be fitted in the next week.
3. Internal doors: It had received clarification on the door specification and had requested a quote from its contractor the following week. It would then liaise with the leaseholder to arrange for the replacement doors and door frame adjustments to be undertaken.
4. Insulation/sound proofing between floors: As had previously been advised, the construction met regulations and specification. The property had been certified by Building Control having been built to 2010 Building Regulations and in accordance with Approved Document E.
The landlord concluded by acknowledging the inconvenience which the defects and attending to them had caused, and that the time taken to resolve the issues had been longer than it would have wanted. In recognition it offered the leaseholder £1,500 in compensation and said that it would work to ensure that the outstanding matters were dealt with as speedily as possible.
The landlord’s records from March 2021 show that as its previous offer of a cash settlement for the doors had been rejected, it was waiting for a quote from a contractor for the works.
The original contractor attended the property during the second week of March 2021 and installed longer screws to the gas box and deemed the matter satisfactorily resolved. The door seal was fitted on 8 April 2021 and again the matter was considered resolved.
In an email to the leaseholder of 11 May 2021, the landlord said that the contractor and customer care manager had advised the front door had been left in full working order and the gasket at the bottom of the door was left installed and working as it should. Therefore, this work was complete, and it would not attend any further.
Regarding the internal doors, it said that as the leaseholder was aware, it had had difficulty obtaining a quote from the contractor, and the contractor had now said that it would not be able to provide a start or completion date due to the amount of work it was working through due to Covid–19. The landlord stated, ‘For this reason…the best way forward is to offer you a generous payment so you can look to carry out the works yourself with contractors in your area that you feel comfortable with. It is with regret we do not have any contractors we can refer this work to, who have not already attended your home or have the capacity to carry out such work.’ It said that as well as the £1,500 compensation previously offered, an additional £2,100 could be provided to cover the cost of the outstanding works. This was its final offer in relation to the stage two complaint, and the landlord provided the Ombudsman’s details.
In reply on 25 May 2021 the leaseholder set out that they expected the landlord to:
1. Fully re-install the gas box in the correct position.
2. Replace the damaged/faulty front door.
3. Add regulatory insulation in the internal walls and floor/ceiling cavities.
4. Compensate the full cost of replacing all internal doors with a sum of £6,000 (as the original doors were no longer available).
The leaseholder also sought £7,500 in compensation. In reply the landlord referred to its 11 May 2021 offer and again referred the leaseholder to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

In their complaint to this Service, the leaseholder has explained that they first raised concerns about defects in the property shortly after moving in, in April 2018. They consider that the landlord ‘dragged out’ the handling of their complaints about these matters for a significant period, and failed to rectify faults with the front door seal, gas meter box, sound proofing, and internal doors and doorframes. The leaseholder has explained that this has been frustrating and time consuming, and has been especially difficult due to bereavements suffered during this timeframe.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’

Front door seal

This matter was first raised in the January 2020 ‘end of defects inspection sheet’, but there is no indication that works were then carried out to remedy this. The landlord accepted that the initial repair constituted a defect for which the leaseholder was not responsible. The landlord did not have a defects policy in place at the time to set out appropriate timescales or guide its response in the event of the original contractor not completing the work, and the time taken to address the defect was unreasonable. It is acknowledged that this timeframe coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns. However, this was not given as a reason for delay by the landlord in its complaint responses and is not considered to be a significant mitigating factor.
In December 2020 the landlord said it would continue to chase the original contractor on the matter, and that it would put that contractor ‘on notice’ if the work wasn’t completed within three weeks, following which it would ask its own contractor to carry out the works. Although efforts were then made to progress this work, it remained outstanding four months later, in March 2021, at which time the landlord apologised that the work had not been completed because the two seals which had been ordered didn’t fit.
A seal was then fitted on 8 April 2021, but the leaseholder stated that the works were poorly carried out, causing damage to the door itself. They have also said that the seal does not stop water entering the property. The landlord is of the view that parts were left working as they should, and the works are complete. While the landlord has made enquiries with staff about the completion of these works, available information does not confirm that it has inspected whether the seal is watertight.
Overall, there was an unreasonable and lengthy delay in the landlord progressing the works to address the defect. While works were completed in April 2021, the matter remains unresolved.

Gas meter box

The leaseholder raised the concern about the gas meter box at least as early as September 2018, and again in September 2019. The ‘end of defects inspection sheet’ dated 14 January 2020 set out that the gas meter box needed to be fixed flush with the wall, and that the cover was broken, detailing …’possible whole new box required.’
On 9 December 2020 the landlord noted that the gas meter lid had been replaced and it did not intend to carry out any further works to the meter box. It did not explain why it had decided, despite the defects report, that no other works were required.
In March 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord installed longer screws to the box and said that this satisfactorily resolved the matter. However, it did not set out what issue this resolved, and it is concluded that the issue of the box not fitting flush to the wall (as reported by the leaseholder in 2018 and highlighted in the defects inspection sheet of January 2020) was unresolved for the whole time. The landlord concluded that the box did not present a hazard, though would investigate further if the leaseholder was able to detail any specific safety concerns.
The landlord did not treat the leaseholder fairly here. It took two years to carry out any works to the gas meter box, and this was limited to replacing the lid. It was not until March 2021 that an attempt was made to fix the box flush to the wall, some three years after the matter was reported. The landlord is of the view that works have been carried out satisfactorily, but the leaseholder is concerned that, even with the longer screws in place, the box ‘is exerting pressure on the gas supply pipe’.

Insulation

The leaseholder states that normal daily sounds such as speech are transmitted between the uninsulated floors and walls at unacceptable levels, and this is indicative of insufficient sound insulation. They point to section 5 in the Approved Document E- Resistance of the passage of sound (‘the document’), explaining that the internal walls in the property are Type B as set out in the document: a timber-frame structure with a single layer of plasterboard lining each side. They state that in line with the document, this type of wall requires an absorbent layer of mineral wool. They explain that the floors are type C: Timber or metal joist with timber or wood-based floor, with a single layer plasterboard ceiling and so require a layer of mineral wool.
The document deals with the Requirements of Part E of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010. It sets out that the internal airborne sound resistance inside any dwelling must be a minimum of 40dB. It is intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations, but also recognises that there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with requirements. It states, ‘Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.’
Section 5 as referred to by the leaseholder gives examples of internal wall and floor constructions that meet laboratory sound insulation values. This section provides an illustration of how different types of wall and floor construction can meet the 40db requirement. It is not prescriptive and, as stated above, the landlord was under no obligation to adopt any of the particular examples shown. As such, the landlord’s response on this matter, that there is no requirement for insulation if a 40db airborne sound resistance is achieved, is in line with this document.
The landlord acted reasonably in addressing this issue by investigating the leaseholder’s concerns, offering to consult with their RICS surveyor, contacting building control inspectors and the NHBC and inviting the leaseholder to instruct a RICS surveyor to confirm their concerns about the insulation, and confirming its position. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was no evidence to show that the construction of the property in relation to this matter was defective. There was no maladministration on the part of the landlord here.

Internal doors and doorframes

The leaseholder made the landlord aware of an issue with two internal doors as early as July 2018. In October 2018, following a visit to the property to inspect defects, the landlord committed to rectify issues with four doors. Inspection of the doors took place in February 2019 and a copy of a quote dated April 2019 details the required works as replacement of a cupboard door in the hallway, a lounge door, and a kitchen door, works to two door frames, and the rehanging of two doors.
In July 2019, the contractor attended, but reported ‘no access’, although the leaseholder states that they were not informed of the appointment. In September 2019, the leaseholder raised concerns that the works were outstanding, and the doors did not meet building regulations for fire safety. Little detail of the works required to the doors was included in the end of defects inspection sheet of January 2020, the issue being described as ‘still in abeyance’. That same month, the leaseholder advised the landlord that six doors required replacement.
In early 2020, the landlord offered to fund the replacement of the doors, and for this work to be organised by the leaseholder, although it did not confirm the number of doors it agreed to replace. Offering to fund the works was a proportionate and reasonable solution to resolving the matter, although available information does not confirm that the landlord addressed the leaseholder’s concerns that the doors did not meet appropriate fire safety regulations, and this was inappropriate.
As the leaseholder declined to organise the works, the landlord attempted to progress the works in March 2020, when a contractor attended the property. The leaseholder has complained that the works could not be carried out at this time as the doors were not the right ones and the contractor was not qualified to complete the work. This is disputed by the landlord, who is of the view that due to the leaseholder’s behaviour, the contractor would not complete any works in the property. At this time, the landlord again offered to fund the works to be organised by the leaseholder and given the developing dispute about contractor conduct, this was again a proportionate response.
It is evident that the landlord accepted responsibility for progressing repair of doors and frames soon after the matter was raised in 2018, but available evidence does not confirm that this work was attempted until March 2020. There are mitigating reasons for some of this delay, which include the need to wait for carpets to be fitted, issues with contractors, and a dispute about the suitability of the doors in 2020. Overall, however, these events do not account for the lengthy delay in agreeing and progressing these works and addressing the leaseholder’s concerns about fire safety. The delay was therefore unreasonable, and understandably caused distress and frustration to the leaseholder for a prolonged period.
In December 2020 the landlord stated that it had ‘made every attempt’ to bring back contractors to complete the work, but they continued to refuse to attend. It suggested again that it cover the costs in line with a quote it had received for £1,485 so that the leaseholder could resolve the matter to their satisfaction. In reply on 22 January 2021 the leaseholder said that this figure was not sufficient as it had been agreed at the end of defects inspection that five doors would be replaced.
As the offer of a cash settlement was rejected, the landlord again attempted to organise the works itself and obtained a further quote from its contractor, although available evidence does not confirm the scope of works the landlord concluded was appropriate at that time. However, works again stalled due to a lack of contractor availability. The landlord subsequently offered the leaseholder £2100 to cover the works. The leaseholder has stated that £6000 would be an appropriate sum to replace all internal doors, as the original doors are no longer available.
While the landlord’s repeated offers to fund the leaseholder’s organisation of the works was a pragmatic approach to resolving the dispute, available information does not confirm that the landlord made sufficient and timely efforts to satisfy itself of, or agree, the full scope of works to the doors, address the leaseholder’s concerns about fire safety, and progress the works. The landlord also failed to manage the leaseholder’s expectations, taking responsibility for completing the works again in 2021 before identifying that contractors were not available. It is accepted that there were some mitigating factors, but overall there were failings on the part of the landlord.
The landlord has attempted to ‘put things right’ via its £1,500 compensation offer, plus an additional £2,100 for the leaseholder to arrange the works. The offer of compensation goes some way to recognising the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the leaseholder. However, there remains disagreement over the cost and possibly scope of the works required to the doors, and neither party has provided details of the quotes on which they have based their views.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was poor, with long delays, and a failure to escalate the complaint and provide a final response when requested.
The landlord’s 28 October 2018 letter appears to be its stage one response as it was the initial response to the complaint, and the landlord’s procedure in place at the time set out two formal stages. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to resolve the complaint by carrying out an inspection of the outstanding defects so that these could be resolved. However, it did not address the leaseholder’s request for compensation.
Given that the landlord had responded to the complaint on 28 October 2018, it is unclear why the landlord advised the leaseholder on 24 January 2019 that a stage one response was due that week. Regardless, there is no indication that another complaint response was sent at this time, and the complaint remained unresolved.
The leaseholder did not ask for the complaint to be escalated until 30 September 2019 when they asked for a final response to the outstanding issues. There is no evidence that the landlord escalated the complaint as requested, or provided any final response. The complaint was therefore left open throughout 2019 with defect issues remaining unresolved. This was unreasonable as there had been no resolution to the complaint and the procedure had not been exhausted and is evidence of poor management of the complaint.
The leaseholder made another complaint about sound insulation on 10 February 2020, which the landlord acknowledged. While it also provided a response to the concerns raised, it did not treat this as a separate formal complaint.
In response to the leaseholder’s email of 3 March 2020 regarding the contractor’s appointment the previous day, the landlord invited the leaseholder to escalate their complaint, and asked what areas remained unanswered and how these could be resolved. The leaseholder did so on 1 April 2020 but again the complaint was not progressed.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 9 December 2020 acknowledging that the complaint had been open longer than it had hoped due to Covid-19 restrictions. However, this email still did not provide a response to the complaint at stage two of its procedure.
The landlord’s response was unreasonable because it did not set out exactly how Covid-19 restrictions had prevented any kind of complaint response for almost the entirety of 2020, and the available information does not demonstrate that the landlord considered how, given the circumstances, it could have addressed the complaint differently in the interest of resolving rather than prolonging the dispute. This may have included setting out its position in writing as an in-person panel could not be convened. It was not until this Service became involved and asked the landlord to provide a final response that this was done on 26 March 2021.
The landlord did not act appropriately because it did not follow its complaint policy when it should have done, and its failure to manage the complaint prolonged the dispute. These failings caused inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble to the leaseholder, and they were unable to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.

Conclusion

The landlord did not treat the leaseholder fairly or follow reasonable processes in relation to its handling of the repairs to the front door seal, the gas meter box, the internal doors and doorframes, and the formal complaint.
In its 26 March 2021 stage two response the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience which the defects and attending to them had caused, and that the time taken to resolve the issues had been longer than it would have wanted, offering £1,500 in compensation, and saying that it would work to ensure that the outstanding matters were dealt with as speedily as possible.
The Ombudsman’s own compensation guidance sets out that amounts of £250 to £700 are reasonable where there has been a considerable service failure or maladministration, but no permanent impact on the complainant. Amounts of £700 or more may be appropriate in cases where there has been a significant and/or long term impact (for example, a long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of a repair). However, a landlord is expected to exercise its discretion appropriately in deciding compensation, considering the individual circumstances of each case, to arrive at a proportionate and fair outcome which remedies the adverse effect caused by its failings.
There is no doubt that the failings identified were upsetting and frustrating for the leaseholder, especially given the difficult personal circumstances at the time, and the Ombudsman acknowledges the impact this had. The £1,500 offered by the landlord went some way to putting things right in terms of the delay in progressing completion of the defects. However, the leaseholder reports that the subsequent works the landlord carried out to the gas box and the door seal did not fully resolve the issues. Neither does the available information support the landlord’s position that it has reasonably satisfied itself that works have been completed appropriately. Works to the internal doors remain outstanding.
Further, there is no evidence that the landlord has taken any action to ‘learn from outcomes’ in relation to the long delays in carrying out works to the internal doors, front door seal and gas box. It has acknowledged that these matters took too long to resolve but has not provided the leaseholder with an explanation for the delays or set out what action it would take to prevent such failings from recurring, for example acting in line with its current defects policy or improving the management of contractors.
In terms of the failings in complaint handling, in its communications with this Service the landlord has acknowledged that it did not deal with the formal complaint effectively, and that it ‘could have done things differently’. It has stated ‘Bpha have learnt a lot from the case and now treat new issues as separate complaints, in order that the customers original complaint does not get lost in the communication and additional issues that get raised. We also follow the Ombudsman [Complaint Handling] code and ensure our customers receive clear communication as to when their complaint has been concluded and learnings have been identified.’
The landlord has said that it has now made improvements to its complaint handling by checking the status of complaints weekly to ensure customers are updated and complaints are closed within 20 working days, or where this is not achievable to request an extension of time from the customer. It now sends out clear closure letters at stage one and two of the process, offers a resolution as soon as practical, and closes complaints so the customer can escalate their concerns if they remained dissatisfied.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has learnt from the outcomes of its complaint handling in this case and the actions taken should prevent similar failings in future. However, the extent of its failings and the adverse effect caused to the leaseholder were not sufficiently acknowledged during the complaint procedure. The failings in complaint handling were significant, causing prolonged adverse effect and delayed resolution. While the landlord’s offer of compensation goes some way to acknowledging the detriment caused, it is overall insufficient redress for the failings identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the handling of the leaseholder’s report of a defect to the front door seal.
2. Maladministration in the handling of the leaseholder’s report of a defect to gas meter box.
3. No maladministration in the handling of the leaseholder’s report of a defect to insulation/sound proofing.
4. Maladministration in the handling of the leaseholder’s report of a defect to internal doors and doorframes.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

There were excessive delays in the landlord’s handling of the front door seal, gas meter box, and internal door repairs. While it has acknowledged this to some degree and offered compensation which goes some way to putting this right, not enough action has been taken to identify the cause of these failings, and to take learning from this to prevent a recurrence.
The landlord’s position on the insulation issue was reasonable, and appropriate in line with Part E of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010.
While the landlord has demonstrated that it has learnt from the outcomes of its complaint handling in this case, the extent of its failings and the adverse effect caused to the leaseholder were not sufficiently acknowledged during the complaint procedure and put right.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the leaseholder an additional £350 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
2. Carry out a review of the way in which the front door seal, gas meter box and internal door repairs were dealt with, identifying the reasons for the delays in these matters being addressed, and what action it will take (or had already taken) to prevent a recurrence. This should include the landlord’s difficulty in arranging a contractor to undertake the works once the landlord had confirmed that it was responsible. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of this review.
3. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to attend the property to inspect the gas meter box and provide written confirmation of their findings, specifically referring to the leaseholder’s safety concerns, and conclusion as to whether further works are required. If additional works are required, these should be completed by the landlord within six weeks of the inspection outcome.
4. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to attend the property to inspect the front door including seal, and provide written confirmation of their findings and conclusion as to whether further works are required. If additional works are required, these should be completed by the landlord within six weeks of the inspection outcome.
5. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to attend the property to inspect the internal doors and doorframes to determine the works required and provide written confirmation of their findings. Following this, the landlord should:
  1. Within four weeks of the outcome of the inspection, obtain a new quote to carry out the works to the internal doors on a ‘like for like’ basis, matching the new doors as closely as possible to the originals.
  2. Within two weeks of receiving the quote, the landlord should offer the leaseholder the quoted sum so that they may arrange the works themselves. The landlord should also offer the leaseholder an additional 10% of the quoted sum to recognise the time and trouble which organising the works will entail.