bpha Limited (202416470)

Decision
Case ID	202416470
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	bpha Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with a rear garden. She has long term health conditions and mobility issues. She asked the landlord to install a rear garden gate and later complained about its handling of this request.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for it to install a rear garden gate.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install a rear garden gate.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the request to install a rear garden gate

5. The landlord did not have an obligation under its repairs responsibilities for installing a new garden gate. It was therefore reasonable for it to refuse the resident’s request.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 response within its 20-working day policy timeframe.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay £50 (inclusive of its previous offer of £20) for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 May 2024	The resident first contacted the landlord about having a gate added to the rear of her garden. She was told the request would be passed to the maintenance team.
18 August 2024	The landlord emailed the resident and told her it would not install a gate, explaining that this would be an improvement rather than a repair.
30 August 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to say she was not happy with how things had been handled. She complained about the way her request from May 2024 had been dealt with.
4 September 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and defined the complaint as being about the lack of communication regarding the request made in May 2024.
17 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It accepted there had been poor communication about the gate request, apologised and confirmed that it would not install a gate because this was an improvement rather than a repair.
19 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint and the landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement.
25 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It repeated its decision not to install a gate. It accepted there had been service failings due to a delay in its stage 2 response and offered £20 as a goodwill payment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She wanted the landlord to install the gate as she originally requested.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install a rear garden gate.
Finding	No maladministration

7. The landlord’s repairs policy set out that it repairs and maintains existing items for which it has a responsibility. The policy says it only has responsibility for rear garden fencing and gates that lead on to public footpaths or other publicly accessible areas. Its tenancy agreement says if a resident wants to make alterations or improvements to the property they need to obtain its written permission first.
8. On 18 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to install a rear garden gate to give her direct access to her bins and parking area from the garden. She said walking the long way round was difficult because of her health, and she felt unsafe using garden without a direct gate. The landlord replied on 22 May 2024 and said it would pass the enquiry on. However, it closed the case in error so the resident did not receive a response at that time.
9. The resident continued to chase the landlord for an answer to her request. It replied with information about responsibility for maintaining fences but did not answer her request. In July and August 2024, the landlord provided general information about its responsibilities for fencing and gates and asked her for photos so it could assess whether the boundary adjoined a communal area or public route.
10. On 18 August 2024, the landlord confirmed it would not install a gate because this would not a repair in line with its policy. This led her to make a stage 1 complaint on 30 August 2024 saying she was unhappy that her emails had been ignored and that staff had referred to a fence when she was asking for a gate. She said the lack of a gate was a fire risk as there was no escape route from the garden.
11. On 17 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It accepted it had closed the resident’s enquiry in error, and she had not received a response. It apologised for the error and explained it had since responded to her queries. It confirmed it only offers repairs on existing items and would not install a new gate, as this was not classed as a repair.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied. In her emails to the landlord in early September 2024 she explained that she felt ignored and her disability and fire safety concerns had not been taken seriously. She added that she did not want contractors walking through her home to access the garden.
13. The landlord carried out a home visit and considered the resident’s reasons for wanting a gate. This was a positive step for it to take. Its stage 2 response confirmed the request was not a repair, explained why it did not consider her request constituted a reasonable adjustment and why it considered there was not a hazard. It explained that if she wanted to make arrangements herself to have a gate installed, she would need to request its written permission first. This response was consistent with the terms of the tenancy agreement regarding making alterations or improvements to the property.
14. The landlord was entitled to refuse the request because its policy does not require it to install a new gate. While its error in closing the enquiry and the delay in giving an answer were shortcomings, the landlord later considered the request and clearly explained why it would not be adding a gate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

15. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process, set out in its complaints policy, the policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
16. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 30 August 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day policy timeframe. It issued its stage 1 response on 17 September 2024. This was within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, so it met the timescale in its policy.
17. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request on 19 September 2024, within the 5-day acknowledgement target. It issued its stage 2 final response on 25 October 2024 after 26 working days. This is more than 20 working days after the stage 2 acknowledgement on 19 September 2024. There is no evidence in the documents that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident or clearly explained the delay, as required by its policy. In its stage 2 response the landlord accepted there had been delays and poor communication and apologised. It also offered £20 as goodwill payment.
18. In both of the landlord’s responses it addressed all parts of the resident’s defined complaint, clearly explained its decisions and the reasons for these. This is in line with the requirements of the Code.
19. However, the £20 goodwill payment the landlord offered did not fully reflect the delay in its complaint handling. This amounts to service failure. To reflect the inconvenience time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation, inclusive of its £20 offer, to the resident.

Learning

20. The landlord should ensure that it clearly identifies whether a service request constitutes a repair or an improvement and provide prompt advice on whether this comes under its repair responsibilities. Where a resident has known, relevant vulnerabilities it should explain how it has considered these as part of its decision.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord should review its record keeping, so all contacts about repair and improvement requests are logged on its systems. This will allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for its actions and decisions.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication was delayed and unclear, it did not clearly explain delays or address the main issue raised by the resident in its initial responses to her request. It should make sure that queries are addressed within reasonable timescales and that clarification is obtained from residents, as necessary, to respond fully to their request.