Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202319767)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319767

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

31 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s enquiries about installing a dropped kerb at her property.
   2. Handling of cavity wall insulation works.
   3. Handling of the installation of a bathroom extractor fan.
   4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about installing a dropped kerb at her property.

3. In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s request to install a dropped kerb at her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters in respect of local councils which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
4. The resident complained she had to pay for planning permission to install a dropped kerb despite there being no alternative parking. She initially stated her neighbour was entering their property without a dropped kerb. She later raised concerns that she believed her neighbour had not been charged for the installation of their dropped kerb. Management of roads, including a request for a dropped kerb, is the responsibility of a council’s highways department, and is not part of the council’s housing management responsibilities. Because of that this issue is not something the Ombudsman will investigate. The resident may consider raising such concerns with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Background

5. The resident is a secure tenant with the landlord, a local council. The property is a three-bedroom semi-detached house.
6. On 13 February, the landlord installed wiring for an extractor fan but determined it should install the fan in the window, which it needed to order. On 11 May 2023, the resident raised concerns that the cavity wall insulation contractor who attended that day had caused cracks to her walls.
7. The resident complained on 14 July 2023. She said work had been completed to rectify her damaged walls, but this had taken weeks of contact. She said the landlord promised her it would clean her carpets but this had not happened. She also said she was awaiting the completion of repairs she had raised.
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused following the cavity insulation works. Nonetheless, it said the contractor’s response to resolve the matter was appropriate. It said it had raised work to clean her carpets. It told her to raise any further issues related to this to its repairs team.
9. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2023. She said there was damage to her lounge wall and brackets for pipes following the cavity wall insulation. She said it had not contacted her about the carpet cleaning. The landlord responded on 4 August 2023 stating it was unable to escalate the complaint. It reiterated its apology regarding the impact of the cavity wall insulation. It reconfirmed it would arrange work to clean the carpets.
10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 September 2023. She said she was waiting for repair work to be carried out. This included the cleaning of her carpets, the bathroom extractor fan and the lounge wall and pipe brackets. We contacted the landlord on 26 October, asking it to provide its final response to the resident.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 November 2023. It said there was no further evidence to consider regarding the impact of the cavity wall insulation. It stated it was delayed in installing the extractor fan due to the supply of the pre-drilled glass. It confirmed it would complete installation by 3 December.
12. The resident has told the Ombudsman she wants resolution of all repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Handling of cavity wall insulation works.

13. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days from the date it was reported. It classifies these as not urgent, but those that may cause inconvenience. It states that in some instances, it may need to inspect the defect first.
14. In her initial complaint of 14 July 2023, the resident detailed the impact on her since the cavity wall insulation work. She said she lived for weeks in unsafe conditions but had stayed in temporary accommodation for 4 days whilst remedial works took place. She said she had to chase the remedial work, and the landlord had not cleaned her carpet as it agreed to do.
15. The landlord’s complaint response of 28 July 2023 appropriately acknowledged the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It confirmed that the cracks in the plaster were an unforeseen issue, and it could find no reason to fault the contractor for this.
16. It said the contractor’s response to resolve each issue raised was “more than satisfactory.” The contractor inspected the issue the day after the resident’s report of damage on 14 July 2023. It arranged and paid for another contractor to replaster and paint the damaged interior and exterior walls. It also arranged for temporary accommodation of the resident’s choice whilst work was complete. The contractor completed the remedial work by 23 June 2023, within a reasonable period.
17. On 19 June 2023, the contractor replied to the resident’s concerns the remedial work had caused damage to her carpets. It said its operative and the plastering operative could find no evidence of this. Despite this the landlord agreed to clean the carpets raising a work order on 21 July. It confirmed it would complete this in 20 working days, which was in line with its repairs policy.
18. It did not clean the carpets within 20 working days, and the issue was still outstanding when the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 September 2023. It is unclear when it cleaned the carpets, but confirmed in its stage 2 response of 1 November, this was complete.
19. In her complaint escalation of 3 August 2023, the resident said the wall behind the door in her lounge was still brick and there were no brackets for the radiator pipes there. It is unclear if this was a new issue or a continuation of the remedial works following the cavity wall insulation. The Ombudsman also raised this with the landlord on 26 October.
20. There is no evidence the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy to inspect the issue or complete the repair in 20 working days. Furthermore, the landlord failed to respond to these issues in both its responses of 4 August 2023 and 1 November. The resident told the Ombudsman on 28 March 2025 that the landlord has not resolved either issue, and there is no evidence showing otherwise.
21. In summary the landlord’s contractor appropriately handled the remedial work following the cavity wall insulation it completed. It took a reasonable approach in agreeing to clean the resident’s carpets but then failed to complete this in a reasonable timescale or keep her updated. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about damage in her lounge or complete repairs in line with its policy.

Handling of the installation of a bathroom extractor fan.

22. The resident raised that repairs were outstanding in her complaint of 14 July 2023. She did not specifically refer to the outstanding extractor fan repair. As such it did not consider the outstanding extractor fan repair in its stage 1 reply of 28 July 2023. Had it done so, it could have managed the resident’s expectations on the matter, particularly as it would later confirm there was a delay.
23. The landlord’s final complaint response of 1 November 2023 acknowledged it was delayed in repairing the extractor fan. It confirmed its first fix of the electrics was in place. This is reflected in its repairs records which show it completed this in February 2023.
24. The landlord explained the delay was due to it needing to fit the extractor fan in a specially designed window. It said it was delayed receiving the glass and then the panes were damaged when delivered. It confirmed it would receive delivery of the glass pane by 3 December 2023, and its contractor would contact the resident about installation.
25. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining its timescales for completion of the extractor fan between February and November 2023. It also did not contact the resident to explain any delays. It should have done this to appropriately manage her expectations. Its complaint response failed to acknowledge this and did not consider an apology or compensation.

Complaint handling.

26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. When landlords do not accept a complaint, they must be able to explain their decision.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2023. The landlord responded on 4 August 2023, stating it would not escalate her complaint. The landlord reiterated its stage 1 response regarding the impact of the cavity insulation works.
28. The landlord failed to explain why it was not escalating this element of the resident’s complaint. It also did not refer to the further issues she had raised related to the impact of the cavity wall insulation. This was not in accordance with the Code, and its failure to offer a clear explanation left the resident uncertain of where she stood.
29. The landlord’s response of 4 August 2023 also failed to provide the resident with details on how to escalate her complaints to the Ombudsman. This was not in accordance with the Code, which confirms that the landlord’s final complaint response must provide details to refer to the Ombudsman.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s request to install a dropped kerb at her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of cavity wall insulation works.
    2. Handling of the installation of a bathroom extractor fan.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders

32. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £425. This is comprised of:
    1. £200 for it delay in cleaning the resident’s carpets and completing repairs to damage in her lounge and its lack of communication on each matter.
    2. £150 for its failure to keep the resident updated on its repair to the bathroom extractor fan.
    3. £75 for its failure to appropriately explain why it was not escalating her complaint and considering further issues raised on the matter.
33. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must inspect the resident’s lounge and create a schedule of works to repair the brickwork and radiator pipes. It must provide details of its findings and plan to complete the work to the resident and Ombudsman. If it has already completed this, it must provide confirmation to the Ombudsman.