Bromford Housing Group Limited (202226916)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226916

Bromford Housing Group Limited

6 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. Handling of the registration of the lease or title to the property.
2. Response to the resident’s request to complete outstanding works.
3. Handling of the complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Having considered the evidence which the resident and the landlord have provided, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the registration of the lease or title to the property is outside of jurisdiction. This is because, under paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. In addition, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, under paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The Ombudsman is not able to adjudicate on legal complaints about, or disputes between, solicitors. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on her complaint about registration of the lease or title, either from her solicitor or an independent solicitor. In addition, or alternatively, she may wish to seek advice from the Legal Ombudsman (www.legalombudsman.org.uk) about her complaint. This Service is, however, able to consider and determine the other elements of the complaint. As a result, the summary of events below is not a record of all events and correspondence between the resident and the landlord, but only those pertinent to the matters under investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a house, in February 2020. At that time the property was newly built by the developer. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has been assisted in her complaint to the landlord, and with escalating her complaint to this Service, by her representative. For ease of reading, both the resident and her representative are referred to as the resident in this report.
The landlord defines a complaint as “all expressions of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by [it], our colleagues, or those acting on our behalf, whether the issue affects an individual customer or a group of customers.”
Under its policy it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and will respond within 10 working days. If the complaint is “complex”, and the landlord needs more time, it will discuss this with the resident and agree an extension of not more than a further 10 working days. It may ask for a further extension if it has good reason such as needing legal or expert third party advice. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and will respond within 20 working days. It may request an extension of time if it needs one and for good reason.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The landlord had a compensation policy which allows it to offer compensation for service failure. It can compensate for loss or damage, failure to deliver a service, time and trouble. It will award compensation on a case-by-case basis.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.
The landlord has provided copies of its shared ownership policies to this Service, however, these do not refer to the matters the Ombudsman can consider arising from this complaint.

Summary of events

On 29 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint about the developer not having finished works to her driveway or installed railings 2 years after she had moved in, which the landlord acknowledged the same day.
In an internal email on 9 May 2022 the landlord chased for approval for the works to the driveway and railings. It also emailed the resident, on 19 May 2022, and asked her to provide copies of emails sent between her and the developer about these works. On 24 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord for an update. The landlord has not provided copies of these emails to this Service, however, has provided internal notes which refer to them.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response by email on 25 May 2022. It said:
1. It was chasing internally for a date when the driveway could be repaired and it would update her.
2. This was an “update as part of stage 1” and it would monitor the complaint to ensure its actions were completed. It also gave details on how to escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s records say that the resident sent it copies of emails from the developer on 7 June 2022. The records also say that at a date not known to this Service the member of the landlord’s staff handling the complaint left the landlord’s employment.
On 30 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, saying she had received a letter about a rent increase. She also said the developer had tried to contact it about the driveway since the end of 2021 but had not received a reply. She said the landlord’s customer service was “disgraceful”. The following day a new member of staff was assigned the complaint by the landlord. The landlord then emailed the resident to introduce the new complaint handler.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 September 2022 to chase for an update. The landlord replied and apologised for the delay. It said it was waiting for internal responses to her complaint and it would update her once it had them. The resident emailed the landlord a further time on 4 November 2022 about the outstanding works to the driveway and railings. She said it was a health and safety issue as there was a dangerous drop. She also said the developer had agreed to do the work subject to the landlord’s approval, but the landlord had failed to respond.
Between 7 and 11 November 2022, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails to arrange a call, which took place on 11 November 2022. After the call the landlord emailed the resident and said it had received an internal response about the driveway, which was that the developer had reviewed the driveway and railing, said they were “to spec and design” and signed them off. It said the resident had to ask to make an improvement.
The resident replied the same day and asked to escalate her complaint. She said she did not accept the landlord’s response, had not been told this before, and could not believe the driveway and area without railings had been left that way on purpose. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 November 2022 to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint, and said it aimed to respond by 20 December 2022.
The landlord exchanged internal emails on 5 December 2022 regarding the driveway. It said, as the developer “reviewed the driveway against the spec and signed it off, we have no further recourse with them” and it was not a defect. The landlord has not provided any evidence of this to this Service.
The landlord’s records say it also called the resident on 5 December 2022 to discuss the complaint, but it failed to make any notes of the call. Its records also say it called the resident again on 19 December 2022 for an extension of time, but again did not make a note of the call. On 6 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to request a further extension of time.
On 30 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, in which it:
1. Referred to a call between it and the resident on 13 December 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence of this call to this Service.
2. Said it was grateful for the resident’s patience as its response was overdue.
3. Said it had extended its timeframe to provide its stage 1 response but could not find any evidence it had contacted the resident about this extension.
4. Confirmed it should have progressed the complaint more quickly and taken better ownership of the issues, which may have prevented the need for a stage 2 complaint. There had been a complaint handling failure and it apologised for this.
5. Regarding the driveway it said it had approached the developer, who had signed the property off against the original plans.
6. Offered £140 compensation for its failure to contact the resident before extending its stage 1 response time, and for its delays and gaps in case handling.
7. Said how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 31 January 2023:
1. The resident emailed the landlord and said she did not accept its final response, which contradicted what she had been told by the developer. She also emailed the developer to ask it what its position was, as it had previously said it was waiting for permission from the landlord to do the works.
2. The developer replied to the resident and said it did need permission from the landlord to complete the works. It needed to install railings and tarmac an area of the driveway, which was owned by the landlord and not demised to the resident’s property.
3. The resident sent a copy of her email correspondence with the developer to the landlord.
The following day the landlord replied to the resident and said it was possible someone had made a mistake about the outstanding works. On 2 February 2023 the developer emailed the resident and said it had visited the property to see the outstanding works. The developer emailed the landlord and asked for permission to carry out the works. It said it had asked before but had not received any replies. It said it had “been chasing this constantly to no avail…as you own the land, we cannot complete any work without your permission.”
At a date not known to this Service the landlord gave the developer permission to install the railings, although it has not provided any evidence of this to the Ombudsman. On 12 April 2023 the developer emailed the landlord to confirm that the railings had been installed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to complete outstanding works

The resident raised the issue of the outstanding works as part of her stage 1 complaint on 29 April 2022. It is not known whether she had asked the landlord about this prior to her complaint and no evidence of this has been provided. The landlord has not provided a policy which details what actions it will take if a property has not been fully completed by a developer.
Initially, on 9 May 2022, the landlord accepted that the works needed to be done in an internal email, and later asked the resident to provide evidence from the developer that it was willing to do the works, which was a positive approach to solving the problem. In its stage 1 response on 25 May 2022, it said it was chasing a date for the works, but it has not provided any evidence of this to this Service. It said it would monitor and ensure the actions were completed, but it failed to do this. The resident waited until 30 August 2022 and then chased the landlord in September and November 2022 as it had not taken any action to resolve the issue, which was a failing. The landlord appears to have been waiting for an internal response from several different departments.
The landlord has not provided any policy or information on whether it inspects newbuild properties when they are completed. Within internal emails and its complaint responses it said that the developer “signed off” the property as meeting the specification. However, it has not provided any evidence of this, or any documents or emails from the developer to confirm this was correct. In addition, in emails sent by the developer to both the resident and the landlord, it denied this was correct and said it was willing to do the work. The resident had provided copies of these emails to the landlord. Remarkably, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response repeated its position.
Only after the end of the complaints process did the landlord reconsider its position, after the resident challenged it. She also provided further evidence from the developer that it was willing to do the works, and simply needed the landlord’s permission. The developer’s email to the landlord on 2 February 2023 is good evidence of its position and no evidence has been provided by the landlord to contradict this. In an email to the resident on 1 February 2023 the landlord accepted that someone may have made a mistake.
From the evidence it appears that the landlord was engaged in silo working within different departments. Within the landlord’s notes reference is often made to making a “challenge” of another department, which does not demonstrate collaborative working within the landlord. This was coupled with a lack of evidence and poor record keeping, which is considered below. It would have been helpful if a single member of the landlord’s staff took ownership of the complaint and contacted the developer directly in the first instance to solve the issue. Had this happened, it is likely permission could have been given and the works carried out much more quickly and without the need for a stage 2 complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration. This caused frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. She had expressed her health and safety concerns, as well as her dissatisfaction at having to wait for her property to be completed following her purchase. After considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, to recognise the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint, and the landlord acknowledged it within its timeframe. It provided its response after 17 working days, outside of its 10-working day timeframe under its policy and the Code which was a failing. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had extended the timeframe but had not evidenced that it had contacted the resident about this, and correctly accepted this was a service failure. It described its stage 1 response as an update but failed to follow up on its actions. After the initial member of staff left the landlord, the complaint appears to have been forgotten until the resident chased it on 30 August 2022, which was also a failing in its process.
The landlord positively assigned a new member of staff to the complaint and contacted the resident. It then attempted to obtain answers to help resolve the complaint but was hampered by its siloed approach in delays and having to ‘challenge’ other departments. This did not demonstrate that its policies and processes were operating effectively and led to the resident escalating her complaint.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within its 5 working day timeframe which was a failing. It requested 2 extensions of time, the last being on 6 January 2023, which meant the stage 2 response was due by 20 January 2023. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord was, during these times, seeking legal advice from its solicitors on the matter which has been determined outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, it should have kept the resident updated when it missed its extended deadline and not having done so was a failing.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly said that there had been failings in its complaints handling and it apologised for this and offered £140 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
While the landlord did apologise for and accept its failings, it did not demonstrate it had learnt from them. It did not say how it would prevent similar delays in the future, particularly when members of its staff leave or change. In this case especially the landlord said its stage 1 response was an update and so it should have paid particular attention to the complaint to ensure that it was resolved. Due to the delays, and having to repeatedly chase the landlord, the resident was caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble. There was maladministration. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £150.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
The landlord has failed to provide relevant emails and documents to this Service. In its records there was also at times a lack of detail or recordings, both of which have been highlighted in this report. This made it more difficult for the landlord to resolve the complaint within its internal complaints process and hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. Due to this there was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. An order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation for additional time and trouble this caused the resident in pursuing her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request to complete outstanding works.
2. Handling of the complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
In accordance with Paragraphs 42(f) and 42(j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the registration of the lease or title to the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to complete outstanding works as it did not fully investigate the issue. Its silo working meant that there were delays in obtaining information, which was incorrect when provided. The landlord failed to proactively contact the developer or change its position when presented with evidence that it was incorrect.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint as it failed to contact the resident to extend its stage 1 response time. It failed to monitor its complaint actions and neglected the complaint following a change in staffing. It also failed to keep the resident fully updated about the progress of its complaint. Crucially it did not show it had learnt from the complaint.
There was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management as it failed to obtain, keep, or provide relevant emails. Its record keeping was poor and relevant notes were not made following actions taken. Importantly when there was a difference of position the landlord could not provide evidence to support its response given within its stage 2 complaint response.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £625 made up of:
  1. £400 for the frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident caused by its response to her request for outstanding works to be completed.
  2. £150 for its complaints handling failures and the impact these had on the resident.
  3. £75 for the additional time and trouble cause to the resident by its knowledge and information management failings.
3. Confirm whether the driveway has been surfaced, or whether this work is outstanding. If it is outstanding the landlord is to provide an explanation and date for the works to be carried out.
4. Review its process in accepting handover of new build properties, including how it surveys and records the outcome of inspections. The landlord is to provide evidence of this review to this Service.
5. Carry out a case review to include how its departments work together to resolve a complaint and avoid silo working practices. This review is also to consider whether a single member of staff can be given authority to resolve the complaint without the need to ‘challenge’ other departments. The landlord is to provide evidence of this review to this Service.
6. Review how it monitors active complaints and what processes it has or could put in place to ensure complaints do not fall through the gap when a member of staff leaves. The landlord is to provide evidence of this review to this Service.
7. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.
8. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.