bpha Limited (202503718)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat which was built in 2023. The residents lease provided to this investigation was not dated; however, the information suggests it began around September 2023. The resident raised her concerns about the lack of grounds maintenance around her property in February 2024, inclusive of a range of end of defect issues. The resident and landlord communicated about this matter up to the resident making her complaint in January 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports about the lack of ground maintenance.
   2. Communal repairs.
3. We have also considered its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the lack of grounds maintenance.
   2. Service failure in its response to communal repairs.
   3. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has not shown that it took action to ensure that the grounds maintenance was being delivered as it should be, despite the resident making her complaint. The landlord did not apologise for its identified failings which was not reasonable and several issues with its record keeping were identified.
6. The landlord cannot demonstrate that its actions were timely or in line with its repairs policy. It failed to demonstrate it had learnt from the failures it had identified with the delay to fix the door and did not demonstrate that the resident was kept up to date on any delay. The landlord raised some repairs in response to the resident’s complaint and advised of dates it would attend in its stage 1 response which was reasonable.
7. The delays in the landlord’s complaint process were marginal and did not have an impact on the resident or the substantive issue. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delays in its complaint responses. The landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint and later refused to raise a further complaint about the issues.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

8. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has the authority to review the terms of the resident’s lease and the head lease in conjunction with the costs charged to the resident and can make a decision as to whether the charges should be reimbursed. The tribunal also can decide whether the landlord has charged a reasonable fee relative to the service it provides. Although we have not considered the costs, the landlord’s response has been considered.

What we have looked at

9. The landlord’s service level agreement in relation to grounds maintenance for the property details the grass would be cut on each visit between April and October. Hard surfaces would be sprayed for weed control on every visit and shrubs/hedges would be cut back when required.
10. It is evident that the resident was in communication with the landlord about the grounds maintenance for nearly 12 months before she made her complaint. She was clearly chasing the landlord for updates about when the grounds maintenance would be done around her property. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised it had no record of issues with the grounds maintenance being reported from the last 12 months. It is consequently clear there were some record keeping failures at this early stage.
11. The landlord evidenced through its internal communications that it attempted to resolve the issue following the resident making her complaint. It found the address to not be registered on the grounds maintenance portal and considered if this was the reason for the lack of visits. It is not evident however, that the landlord came to a conclusion on this point before issuing its stage 1 response. In addition, its stage 1 response contradicted this and advised it had been attending regularly. Again, this is indicative of record keeping inaccuracies with the landlords systems.
12. The landlord’s attempt to put things right in its stage 1 response was inadequate in comparison to the residents concerns about the service. It said it would ask for “extra attention” on the next visit. The landlord did not expand on what extra attention would entail, however. The landlord could have, at this early stage, managed the residents expectations of its service and given details of its service level agreement.
13. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had not been maintaining the site consistently due to an issue with its records. It committed to put things right by attending the site alongside its contractor to come up with a plan as to how to bring the area up to a satisfactory standard and confirmed it would then be visited every 3 weeks. This was a reasonable response by the landlord, it acknowledged its failing and made an attempt to put things right. It could have gone further and considered what learning it could take from the residents complaint, for example how it would monitor the contractors going forward or how it would ensure its records would be adequately updated in similar circumstances.
14. Immediately after the landlord’s final response, the resident raised the concern about being charged for this service as it had not been provided, the landlord confirmed that she had not been charged for the service due to an administrative error. Again, this highlights issues with the landlords record keeping.
15. The resident further complained in June 2025 that the garden had been allowed to become overgrown again. The landlord in communication to an MP confirmed that the grass cutting was not consistently done every 3 weeks. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that there were performance issues with its grounds maintenance contractor and a new contractor had attended the site from November 2025.
16. In cases such as this, the Ombudsman would expect to see some form contractor sign-in sheets/reports, copies of the date-and-time-stamped before-and-after photographs, or contractor logs. The landlord has not provided records of its monitoring, nor has it shown that it took any meaningful steps to ensure that these services were taking place in accordance with its service level agreement despite the resident going through its complaint process.
17. The landlord should have considered carrying out regular inspections as soon as the resident brought her concerns to its attention. The fact that it did not undertake regular inspections was a failing which would have caused the resident frustration as well as considerable time, trouble and inconvenience.
18. Overall, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with sufficient evidence to show that it monitored the grounds maintenance at the resident’s property. There is a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s actions, as it has not shown that it has taken action to ensure that the grounds maintenance is being delivered as it should be. Additionally, the landlord did not apologise for the failings it acknowledged which was not reasonable. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a review of the management of its grounds maintenance service. This should consider the internal processes it uses to manage and monitor grounds maintenance to ensure visits are completed according to its service level agreement and to a satisfactory standard.
19. As noted above, the resident has told the Service that the problems with grounds maintenance have continued. It is recommended that the landlord investigate any more recent issues and takes any necessary steps to ensure that its contractors are carrying out these services in-line with its service level agreement.

20. Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the common parts of the resident’s block.
21. Although the resident’s frustration in having to raise repairs is understood, the landlord operates a responsive repairs service, as so repairs are required to be reported to it in line with the lease agreement and its repairs policy.
22. The landlords repair policy says routine repairs will be completed within 28 days and non-routine repairs within 90 days. It says if a routine repair becomes complex it will reclassify it as a non-routine.
23. As with the above issue, it is evident the resident was raising repairs for the communal back door well before she made her complaint. According to the landlords records this issue was first raised on 13 December 2023, it is not clear however if it was the resident who raised this. This order notes there had been issues with opening the door in the past, but it later looked as if someone had damaged the door in attempt to open it. The landlord records do not clearly indicate when it attended to the door following this as notes indicate the target date and any appointments kept being moved along. According to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response the door was attended to multiple times and was resolved on 8 January 2025. It is not clear if the landlord attended to this repair within its policy timescales each time it attended.
24. Throughout the complaint process, the resident raised further issues that required repair or attention. These included a bin store, front communal door, bike store and communal window cleaning. The landlord confirmed it had raised repairs in its stage 1 response for the bin store and communal front door; it also gave dates when it would attend. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and in line with its repairs policy.
25. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s comments regarding the bike store and window cleaning within its complaints process which was not reasonable and is discussed below.
26. Overall, it is not clear from the landlord’s records that its actions were timely or in line with its repairs policy. It failed to demonstrate it had learnt from the failures it had identified with the delay to fix the door and did not demonstrate that the resident was kept up to date on any delay. Taking this into consideration its response to the residents complaint results in a determination of service failure.

27. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says once a complaint is logged it will be acknowledged within 5 working days. At stage 1 it will aim to provide a response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. Escalation requests will also be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 2 includes an appeal hearing which the customer can attend, and a response will be provided within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At each stage, if it requires more time, it will provide its reasoning to the customer. 
28. The resident complained on 1 January 2025. Following further personal information being provided by the resident for identity checks on 3 January 2025, the landlord raised the complaint on 9 January 2025. It acknowledged the complaint on 15 January 2025, 4 working days after its acknowledgement. Although the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy timescale, there was a slight delay between the resident providing her identity information and the landlord raising the complaint.
29. Its stage 1 response was provided within 10 working days of its acknowledgement which was in line with its policy and the complaint handling code. Its stage 2 acknowledgement was also in line with its policy. The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided 1 working day after the date it had given the resident for its response.
30. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s comments regarding the bike store and window cleaning within its complaint process which was not reasonable. A landlord is expected to consider all aspects of a residents complaint and provide its position at the very least. The resident later tried to raise a further complaint to include these issues, but the landlord refused to raise a further complaint as it said it had already responded under its complaints process. This resulted in time and trouble being spent by the resident trying to reach a resolution.
31. There was service failure by the landlord in handling the resident’s complaint. The delays in its complaint process were marginal and did not have a significant impact on the resident or the substantive issue but is still a failing. The landlord also failed to respond to all the resident’s concerns raised.

Learning

32. The landlord’s overall complaint management was not bad, but it should ensure it is confident it has responded to all issues before refusing to raise additional complaints.
33. The landlord may wish to consider the involvement of residents in the monitoring of the delivery and quality of its grounds maintenance services.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. Effective record keeping is essential not only for resolving complaints but also for ensuring transparency and building trust with residents. The landlord should strengthen its systems to ensure that relevant records are readily accessible, accurately maintained and utilised in its responses.

Communication

35. The landlord should ensure it keeps residents updated around timeframes for repairs, and any delays which are likely to impact on completion times for repairs.