Bromford Housing Group Limited (202210426)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210426

Bromford Housing Group Limited

21 February 2024

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 landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about rising heating costs due to poor insulation in the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of noise and smells coming from the binstores.
3. Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
4. Handling of the resident’s complaints.
This report also looks at the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor 2-bed property owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let by assignment to an assured tenancy in 1998.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident but noted that the resident’s wife had been undergoing cancer treatment.
During a conversation this Service held with the resident on 6 February 2024 he disclosed that his wife had sadly died following a cancer diagnosis. He also said that she had fallen down the stairs in September 2023 which had aggravated her medical situation. The situation has clearly been very distressing for the resident. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his wife’s health had been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
During the conversation this Service held with the resident on 6 February 2024 he said that he had asked the landlord to move him from his property and that it had increased his rehousing priority status. The Ombudsman is not in a position to order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move for other priority reasons. However, we have made an order below that the landlord should continue to support the resident with his request to transfer from his current property and to discuss his options with him if it has not done so already.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s repairing and maintaining assets policy says it is responsible for the maintenance of the structure, fabric, fixtures, fittings and finishes of its directly owned and managed assets, including garages and external stores, boundary walls and the internal structure and fabric which includes walls, floors, and ceilings.
The landlord’s lettings policy says that it could consider making a direct management move offer outside of the nomination process or direct application process. The decision to make an offer is at the discretion of the landlord. Examples of circumstances where a management move would be considered are when residents are unable to manage in their existing home and suitable accommodation has been identified.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider discretionary awards for instances of service failure, maladministration, financial loss and distress and inconvenience.
Paragraph 1.7 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Paragraph 5.3 says landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and any reasons for the decisions made. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The landlord completed an annual gas safety inspection on 4 May 2022 which reported there to be no issues in the property.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 August 2022 to complain about rising heating costs caused by poor insulation and high ceilings in the property, the landlord’s handling of his reports of noise and smells coming from the bin stores, and the landlord’s failure to make promised call backs to the resident. The resident said that he had made complaints to the landlord that had not been responded to and that he was seeking a move to a bungalow or to a property with neighbours of a similar age and a resolution to his binstore concerns.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2022 to raise a stage 1 complaint about the matters the resident had reported 2 days previously.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident on 18 August 2022 about his stage 1 complaint. The resident said that he considered that the property was no longer suitable due to the medical needs of the household.
The landlord held an internal email conversation on 23 August 2022 to find out if it had any suitable properties that it could offer to the resident. The landlord confirmed that it had told the resident that it was looking into rehousing for him and that it would call him when it had received agreement for a move. The landlord said that it had also agreed to hold a conversation with his upstairs neighbours about the noise that they caused when they completed day to day jobs.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 September 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had explored offering him a management move but it did not have any available homes that would meet the resident’s needs at that time. The landlord also said that this did not mean it was eliminating this option and that it would ask for first refusal on any bungalows that became available in the area.
2. It would remind his neighbours to be considerate when completing day to day household jobs in response to the resident’s noise reports.
3. It would investigate the resident’s concerns about noise and smells coming from the binstore.
4. It had arranged for a surveyor to visit the property on 20 September 2022 to investigate insulation, damp, and heating costs in the property.
5. Despite the resident not raising these matters with the customer service staff, the neighbourhood coach (NC) should have acted on the resident’s concerns when completing home visits.
6. It apologised and advised the resident how to escalate the complaint if he was dissatisfied with the response. The landlord did not say if it had upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 September 2022 to say that he was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. He said that he had been complaining about heat loss for 8-9 years and that the landlord had previously promised to insulate the property but had not done so. Furthermore that it had refused to complete these works or investigate them again. This Service advised the resident to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
The resident confirmed to this Service that he had contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 to escalate his complaint but that the landlord had said it could not connect him to the complaints department but that it would send an email on his behalf.
The resident contacted this Service on 5 and 10 October 2022 to advise that the landlord had not responded to his stage 2 complaint.
This Service contacted the landlord on 24 October 2022 to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The letter referred to the landlord’s handling of noise coming from the bin cupboards, communication with the resident and its handling of complaints. Furthermore the letter restated that the resident was seeking a move to a bungalow or to a property with neighbours of a similar age group and for the landlord to rectify the reported issues with the binstore. The letter asked the landlord to provide a final stage 2 response to the resident by 7 November 2022.
The landlord sent an email to this Service on 24 October 2022 that said it did not have a record of the resident making a phone call to it on 8 September 2022 or an email being sent on his behalf. The landlord confirmed that it would provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 7 November 2022.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident on 25 October 2022 about his request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident said that there was not a damp and mould problem in the property, but that heat was escaping due to a lack of insulation. Furthermore that previous issues with noise from his upstairs neighbour had been resolved.
This Service contacted the landlord on 9 November 2022 requesting it to respond to the resident’s escalated complaint by 17 November 2022.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 November 2022. The landlord summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint. The landlord said:
1. It would arrange a new appointment to inspect the property due to there being no access on a previous appointment.
2. An external contractor had been appointed to complete a thermal imaging assessment of the property on 17 November 2022 which would assess the level of insulation. The landlord said that this was the earliest appointment it could arrange due to the availability of the contractor which was out of the landlord’s control.
3. The resident had combi-boiler central heating and that it had completed a gas safety inspection on 4 May 2022 which confirmed there to be no issues.
4. It did not have any control over the utility company costs but that it would refer the resident to an income management advisor to discuss whether there were ways to maximise the resident’s income.
5. It had recommended that the bins were moved to a different location to limit the impact of smells and noise on the resident. It further said that some noise might continue as it housed the utility meters which residents would need to access.
6. During a conversation it had held with the resident about his complaint he had confirmed that a previous issue with noise from an upstairs neighbour had been resolved.
7. Nothing in the resident’s complaint indicated that he would be eligible for a management move but he could continue to bid on available property as he had done in the past.
8. It could not see any evidence of a lack of communication, but it might have occurred as a result of a cyber-attack that had affected the organisation. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused and asked for the resident to confirm his preferred contact method.
9. Its response was final and referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied. The landlord did not say if the complaint was upheld.

Events that took place after completion of the internal complaints process.

The resident contacted this Service on 29 November 2022 to say that he was not happy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The resident said:
1. Due to his wife’s medical care they were not always at home to allow access to the surveyor.
2. A surveyor had been to the property, but the thermal camera survey had not been progressed due to staff illness and he was waiting for the appointment to be rearranged.
3. He understood that the landlord did not have control over the utility providers’ costs, but that due to the high ceilings and lack of insulation he had to leave heating on longer due to his wife’s medical needs.
4. The landlord had resolved the smells coming from the bin stores and he did not mind some noise as long as it was not loud and unbearable.
5. The binstore needed to be insulated to prevent smells and this had not been completed.
6. He had not asked for a management move nor made any requests about it, but this had previously been suggested by the landlord. He was still looking to move to a 2-bed bungalow due to the household’s healthcare needs and he had provided the relevant supporting letters to the landlord.
7. The landlord had apologised for its communication failings and the inconvenience this had caused but he was still waiting for a response to a separate complaint his granddaughter had made on his behalf on 20 October 2022.
8. The whole process with the landlord had been extremely stress-inducing and had caused his wife to have anxiety and sleepless nights.
The landlord completed a thermal imaging survey at the property on 30 November 2022. The survey suggested that “cold areas and the uninsulated walls of the binstore were causing cold bridging on the party wall.” The contractor said that a lack of insulation, especially to the bin store ceiling and party wall, should be addressed with an insulated dry lining system. Furthermore, that an insulated dry lining system should be installed to the external walls of the bedroom and appropriate insulation should be installed under the bedroom floor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rising heating costs due to poor insulation in the property.

It is not clear to this Service when the resident first reported his concerns about the insulation of the property to the landlord but on 8 September 2022 he advised this Service that he had reported heat loss for 8 or 9 years. He also said that the landlord had agreed to insulate the property but had not done so.
The resident reported his concerns about the cost of heating the property to the landlord via this Service in his stage 1 complaint of 17 August 2022. The resident explained that this was due to poor insulation. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by agreeing to investigate the matter and advised that it had made an appointment to assess whether any repairs were required. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to take in recognition of its repairs responsibilities. However, the landlord arranged the appointment on 20 September 2022 which was 24 working days after it had received the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s repair and maintaining assets policy does not provide specific target timescales for completing any repairs that are not considered emergencies. However, given the landlord was aware that the resident’s wife was undergoing cancer treatment this Service considers the landlord’s response time to be unreasonable and not in keeping with good customer care principles.
The landlord was required to arrange a new inspection appointment as it had been unable to gain access to the property on 20 September 2022 due to the healthcare needs of the household. However this Service had not seen any evidence that it had raised a new appointment prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2022. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to have taken to rearrange the previous missed appointment. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, especially given the onset of winter months which would have reduced the temperature of the property and therefore increased heating costs further.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that it had made arrangements for a qualified contractor to attend the property to complete a thermal imaging survey. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider contracting a specialist to assess the property.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that it had checked the combi-boiler in May 2022 and that there had been no faults found with the equipment in the property. It also said that it was not responsible for the costs that utility companies charged but that it recognised that fuel costs had increased. The landlord offered to refer the resident to its income management advisor to explore ways to maximise the resident’s income. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to take in recognition that there might be some assistance it could provide to help the resident meet the increased utility costs.
It is evident that the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports of poor insulation. Furthermore it addressed his concerns about increased heating costs by referring him to a qualified income advisor. However the landlord did not complete these actions in keeping with reasonable timescales and did not diagnose the issues and/or agree an action plan to address the matters prior to the completion of the complaint procedure. It is noted that the landlord had been unable to arrange an appointment with its specialist contractor sooner. However it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have acted on the resident’s reports and its missed appointment more quickly.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rising heating costs due to poor insulation in the property.
Since the internal complaint procedure was completed the landlord has identified a series of insulation works required within the property and the binstores. The landlord has committed to complete these works. However it is unclear to this Service whether the recommended works have been fully completed. An order related to this is therefore made below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and smells coming from the binstores.

The resident reported concerns about noise and smells coming from the binstores to the landlord on 17 August 2022 via this Service. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it would investigate the matter. It is not clear why the landlord did not investigate the matter prior to issuing its complaint response and this is considered further below in the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The resident escalated the matter with the landlord on 8 September 2022 and again on 24 October 2022 when his first escalation attempt was not actioned. The landlord responded to the resident on 17 November 2022 to confirm that it had asked for the bins to be moved, but that some noise might continue due to the general access required to the utility meters. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to have taken to address the matter and to manage the resident’s expectations about the multipurpose of the binstore. However it took the landlord 2 months to propose the simple relocation of the bins and no additional measures were proposed. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for a straightforward solution to the matter to be found.
The resident confirmed in an email he sent to this Service on 29 November 2022 that the matter had been addressed by the landlord. However, he confirmed during a conversation held with this Service on 6 February 2024 that the matters had returned since the completion of the internal complaint procedure.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and smells coming from the binstores. The resident’s comments that the issues with the binstore have reoccurred has been taken into account in making the orders set out below.

The landlord response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The resident explained to this Service on 15 August 2022 that he was seeking to move from the property as a resolution to the complaint matters he had reported. This matter was put to the landlord by this Service in a letter dated 17 August 2022. The landlord subsequently held an internal email conversation about offering the resident a management move. It subsequently advised the resident that it was considering rehousing him and that it would confirm when this had been agreed. The landlord was entitled to consider the resident’s request as a management move in line with its letting’s policy and therefore this was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take.
The landlord reviewed its housing databases to locate alternative properties that may have been suitable for the resident prior to issuing its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord advised the resident that it did not have any suitable properties but that it would contact him if one became available and provide him with a first offer of refusal. It also said that it was not eliminating its offer of a management move.
It is evident that the landlord had not located any suitable alternative accommodation prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response. However it said that there was nothing in his complaint that warranted a management move and that the resident should continue to bid on properties. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm why, or when, the landlord had withdrawn its previous commitment to offer a management move. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had been under the impression that the landlord would make a management move offer in response to his household’s medical circumstances and in line with its previous commitment.
The landlord’s decision to offer a management move was in keeping with its lettings policy and given its assessment of the household’s medical situation was a reasonable decision for it to make. This Service accepts that the decision remained at the landlord’s discretion and that its decision could change. However, the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations by committing to a management move and the resident’s medical circumstances did not change. Therefore it is not clear why the landlord did not keep to the commitments it had previously made and which it had referred to in its previous communications and in its stage 1 complaint response. Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not register complaints that the resident said he had had raised with the landlord prior to contacting this Service in accordance with paragraph 1.7 of the Code.
2. Did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request of 8 September 2022 or email his request to escalate the complaint on his behalf as it had said it would.
3. Did not investigate the resident’s reports of noise and smells prior to issuing its stage 1 response in line with paragraph 5.6 of the Code.
4. Did not confirm whether the stage 1 complaint had been upheld in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Code.
5. Did not provide a stage 2 complaint response on 6 October 2022 in line with the timescales contained in the complaint policy and the Code.
6. Did not agree an extension of time with the resident in line with paragraph 5.14 of the Code when it realised it would be unable to respond to his complaint within its policy timescales.
7. Did not provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 November 2022 so as to be in line with the advice provided by this Service when the complaint was escalated on behalf of the resident.
8. Provided a stage 2 response to the resident on 17 November 2022 which was 47 working days after the resident’s escalation request of 8 September 2022. This was 27 working days later than the timescales contained in the complaint policy and the Code.
9. Did not confirm whether the stage 2 complaint had been upheld in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it could see no evidence of poor communication. However it acknowledged that this could have happened due to a cyber-attack and therefore apologised for any inconvenience this might have caused. The landlord did not offer a compensation payment for any aspect of its communication or response to the resident’s complaint. Furthermore it did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it provided. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact its complaint handling delays had on the resident which had caused him time and trouble in pursuing a response to the matters. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.

The landlord’s management of knowledge and information.

It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail without which we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s submission did not include any information about why or when it had decided not to offer a management move. Nor did the landlord provide any records of the contact attempts the resident had made to report his complaint. The landlord confirmed that it did not retain a record of the contact the resident had made with it on 8 September 2022 to escalate his complaint, nor any record of an email it had agreed to send to escalate the complaint on his behalf. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information received. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. Taking all matters into account this Service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of knowledge and information.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rising heating costs due to poor insulation in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and smells coming from the binstores.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management of knowledge and information.

Reasons

The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s reports of rising heating costs due to insulation issue affecting the property. However it did not complete these within reasonable timescales or establish an action plan to complete repairs prior to completing the complaint procedure.
The landlord took 2 months to address the resident’s complaint about noise and smells coming from the binstores which was an unreasonably long time for it to have taken to simply move the location of the bins. No additional measures were proposed to ensure a lasting resolution to the matter was found.
The landlord advised the resident that it would offer the resident a management move in recognition of his household medical needs. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord subsequently advised the resident that it could no longer see a need for a management move, despite there being no change to the medical needs of the household.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to investigate its own complaint handling and therefore consider whether compensation for its complaint delays was appropriate.
The landlord failed to supply sufficient evidence to this Service so as to evidence the various contact attempts the resident had made to report and escalate his complaints and its decision to withdraw its offer of a management move.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in progressing repairs to insulate the property, addressing reported noise and smells coming from the binstores, its handling of the resident’s rehousing request and for its complaint handling failures and its management of knowledge and information. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the resident’s reports of rising heating costs due to poor insulation of the property..
2. £100 for distress and inconvenience related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and smells coming from the binstores.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
4. £200 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs related to the assessment of insulation are required in the property and the binstores. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the repairs to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. The landlord should review and incorporate the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. The retention and supply of accurate records and information relied on in complaint responses.
2. The accuracy of records stored on the housing databases related to resident contact.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss his request to transfer from his current property and the rehousing options available to him if it has not done so already.