Bromford Housing Group Limited (202231843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231843

Bromford Housing Group Limited

19 June 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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a defective roof.
   2. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. She purchased 60% of the property, a 3-bedroom new build property, from the landlord, a housing association, on 20 September 2019.
3. The landlord says the resident made it aware that she has a mental health condition.
4. The property was constructed by a third-party developer and was in the 12-month Defect Liability Period (DLP) at the time of purchase. The DLP ran from September 2019 to August 2020.
5. Within a month of purchasing the property the resident reported a leak from the roof which the landlord raised with the developer. The developer’s contractor inspected the roof who identified the coping stones and chimney were not “tacked down” properly on the roof. Some repairs were carried out in January 2020 but the repair to the coping stone was then put on hold as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
6. At the end of the DLP in August 2020 the landlord asked the resident if there were any outstanding defects and she told them that the repair to the coping stones was still outstanding.
7. When the resident next contacted the landlord about the repair on 5 July 2021, she said the coping stones had slipped further and needed addressing. The landlord said it could not see that it received photos of the slipped coping stones and told her that because she owned more than 50% of the property, the completion of works was her responsibility. It told her to submit a claim through the National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty scheme.
8. On 29 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the lack of repair to the coping stones on the roof. The resident said:
   1. She first reported this during DLP and it told her that the developer was responsible for the repair.
   2. The developer’s contractor came out and advised that some structures on the roof, the coping stones, and the chimney, had not been fixed down.
   3. The chimney was fixed to her roof in January 2020, but then Covid happened.
   4. The resident said she had a letter from landlord saying it would continue to act on her behalf however it was now November 2022 and the fix still outstanding.
   5. A number of neighbouring properties had experienced the same issue but their roofs had been fixed.
   6. She was asking for the repair works to be completed as soon as possible.
9. The landlord called the resident on 1 December 2022 to discuss her complaint and the resident told it she had felt “completely ignored”. The landlord asked her to provide a copy of the email she sent to its New Homes After Care Team (ACT) with a photo of coping stones which it said would help it “push” this with its ACT. On 13 December 2022, the landlord said it was waiting for her to send the emails.
10. On 20 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. Within its response, the landlord said it had contacted its ACT who stated that because she was around 2 years out of the DLP,  the resident would need to submit a claim via the NHBC, as previously advised.
11. The landlord referred to their call on 1 December 2022 when it said the resident:
    1. Reiterated that the landlord and said that when in September 2020 its ACT had asked for photos of the coping stones to send to the developer, she had sent these to the ACT.
    2. She was then told the repair was her responsibility and she sent emails to the landlord but none were answered.
    3. When she contacted the NHBC they asked her to first submit a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the lack of repair of the defect.
12. The landlord reiterated its request for the resident to provide copies of her emails sent to its ACT showing the coping stone was on the list of defects and that she provided a photograph. The landlord said it may then be able to get the developer to accept the claim.
13. The landlord said it was sorry that the service she had received fell below its expectations on this occasion. It said feedback would be given to the relevant team / management, so that its standards of service could be reiterated to the team and the importance of this. It offered her a gesture of goodwill payment of £60 for the lack of communication and the inconvenience this caused to her.
14. On 3 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her it was  closing her complaint. On 5 January 2023, the resident provided the landlord with an email that she sent in 2019 escalating the defect with the roof. She said it was not her responsibility to the fix the roof and that the landlord had failed to get this issue fixed for her.
15. On 10 January 2023, the landlord told the resident to raise with the NHBC and on 16 January 2023 the resident reiterated her complaint saying that she was unhappy the roof had still not been repaired. She said the apology and £60 in compensation offered at stage 1 was unsatisfactory.
16. On 30 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase its stage 2 response and the landlord replied on the same date apologising and promising to compensate her for the delay in its stage 2 response. It said it would be dealt with as soon as possible.
17. On 5 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay with she experienced at stage 2.
18. Within its response the landlord said after she provided details of outstanding defects at the end of the DLP, it could that see the developer requested photographs of her coping stones in order for them to address the outstanding issue. The landlord stated that its ACT emailed her requesting this information however it could not see that the requested information was ever provided to it. Therefore, it told the resident that it was unable to progress anything further with the developer.
19. The landlord said as this outstanding defect fell outside of her DLP,  its ACT correctly advised that her next steps would be to submit a claim through the NHBC. The landlord said it had asked its ACT where it stood if the developer was aware of a defect but has not progressed this due to not obtaining relevant information and photographs. Its ACT said the only option it had was if it could obtain a copy of the original email, she sent with the photographs attached, at the time it originally requested. It said it would then have sufficient evidence to challenge the developer and may be able to get them to agree to accept the claim. The landlord said it had requested this at stage 1, but the resident had not provided this although it acknowledged she said that the photographs may have been on her daughter’s phone as hers was not working at this time.
20. The landlord reiterated the only option for her was to now contact the NHBC and make a claim directly through them. However, it acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication and agreed this was not up to its expected level of service. It said it recognised that her original request to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 was not acknowledged or actioned. It said  this was a failing and it was sorry for this. The landlord offered to increase the compensation to £235 made up of:
    1. Original offer of compensation – £60.00
    2. Lack of communication / service – £40.00
    3. Failure to escalate when originally requested – £50.00
    4. Delays at stage 2 (17 working days x £5) – £85.00

Post the landlord’s final response

21. In her referral to this Service on 23 April 2023, the resident told us she was unhappy she had been waiting for a roof repaint since 2019.
22. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 25 April 2023 asking them to get the landlord to resolve the defect on her roof.
23. On 1 June 2023, the resident told the landlord and this Service that the defect had been rectified by the developer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

24. In her referral to this Service, the resident told us she incurred costs to repair internal damage caused by dampness due to the leak from the roof.  As these  concerns were not raised in her complaint and did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, we are unable to consider these matters in this investigation.
25. The Service is unable to consider the actions or inactions of the developer as they are not a member of the Scheme. However, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defect and if its actions were in line with its policies and procedures and reasonable in the circumstances.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective roof.

26. The resident’s lease agreement states that the resident is responsible to repair and keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition. However, new build properties have a DLP where the original builder is responsible for rectifying any defect raised. This is echoed in the landlord’s new home user guide (User Guide) which informs residents to report to it any defects vis its portal or by calling its customer services. In this case, the DLP ended in August 2020.
27. In her formal complaint, the resident said she was unhappy that repairs to the roof identified during the DLP to resolve a leak, were not fully completed during the DLP. The resident recognised that some delay was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic but said although she told the landlord the repair to the coping stones was still outstanding at the end of the DLP in August 2020, it later told her that this repair was her responsibility.
28. It is clear from the landlord’s records that the resident raised the defective roof issue with the landlord within a few days of purchasing the property from it. Therefore, as it was reported within the DLP, the developer had a responsibility  to rectify this once raised by the landlord. It is evident that the landlord appropriately raised the roof leak with the developer on 30 September 2019. The developer then attended and found that the chimney and coping stones were not properly secured to the roof. Although the developer completed some repairs to the roof by the end of January 2020, the repair in relation to the coping stones was not provided at that time or within the DLP.
29. This Service has not had sight of any communications exchanged between the landlord and the developer dating back to the DLP save for the landlord’s initial email to the developer on 30 September 2019 which notified them of a leak and an issue with the roof tiles. However, on balance it is accepted that the lack of any repair provided in relation to the coping stones from 20 March 2020 until the end of the DLP in August 2020 was, in the main due to the Covid-19 lockdown when non-urgent works were put on hold.
30. It is clear from the landlord’s User Guide that the landlord usually carried out the final defect inspections in person however in the resident’s case this did not go ahead due to the pandemic. Rather, the landlord contacted the resident at the end of the DLP in August 2020 asking her to provide details of any outstanding defects.  This is in line with the User Guide which says the landlord requires a list of items that residents feel are covered during the defects period to ensure that all items are addressed. Therefore, in these circumstances, the landlord acted reasonably. The resident provided the landlord with a list of outstanding defects which included the coping stone repair.
31. Given that there had already been a significant delay with completing the repair, we would expect the landlord at this stage to ensure the developer then urgently addressed the roofing repair. Particularly as unsecured coping stones on the roof were potentially at risk of slipping and falling off the roof.  Again, this Service has not seen any of the landlord’s communications with the developer at this time. However, it is evident that when the resident contacted the landlord again in July 2021, as she was concerned the repair was still outstanding, it told her the repair was her responsibility.  Furthermore, in September 2021, the landlord said that the resident needed to submit a claim through the NHBC. The landlord maintained  its position throughout its complaints process after the resident raised a formal complaint on 29 November 2022 regarding the outstanding repair.
32. Defects reported after the defect period will usually be dealt with under the building’s warranty, which in the resident’s case was with the NHBC and therefore any advice from the landlord of the same would be appropriate. However, here the landlord was fully aware that the resident had initially raised this defect during the DLP, therefore, it had a responsibility to manage that process to ensure the defect was fully resolved. This is in accordance with the User Guide which says the landlord will raise and get all items addressed by the developer. It is noted however that this does not include expected timescales for defects to be addressed by the developer or detail any action or intervention by the landlord in the event defects reported within the DLP are not addressed by the developer. As this would be appropriate in the circumstances, an appropriate order has been included below.
33. This Service has seen no evidence to show the landlord took steps to chase the developer or manage the delay in addressing the defect at any stage during the DLP or once the resident informed it at the end of the DLP. Furthermore, the landlord then missed opportunities to resolve the situation when re-raised by the resident in July 2021 and again following her formal complaint made in December 2022. Therefore, the landlord’s ongoing failure to take responsibility for resolving the issue is indicative of a significant failing by the landlord to adhere to its obligations.
34. In its complaint responses the landlord said when the resident informed it the repair was outstanding at the end of the DLP, it asked her to send photos of the coping stones but that she had not provided these. The resident disputed this but based on the available evidence this Service is unable to establish these events in 2020. Regardless, both the landlord and the developer were made aware of the defect during the DLP and ought to have had records of the outstanding coping stone repair. The developer had already completed some repairs to the roof to resolve the leak prior to works being put on hold because of the pandemic. The landlord should have taken appropriate action to progress the repair after the resident told it that it remained outstanding at the end of the DLP and ensured this issue was fully addressed. As such, it was unreasonable for the landlord to suggest in its complaint responses that the resident was to blame for the lack of any resolution provided to the outstanding repair.
35. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s MP raised a concern with the landlord a few weeks after the date of its final response regarding the lack of any repair provided. Furthermore, that following this the work to the coping stone was completed by the developer by 1 June 2023.  While this outcome is welcomed, the landlord’s prior lack of action since August 2020 was unreasonable and is indicative of it failing to follow its policy. This resulted in an unreasonable delay in getting the defect with the coping stones addressed despite the resident raising the repair on several occasions, including during the DLP. The landlord then had an opportunity to put right this defect during the complaints process, however, due to its unwillingness to properly revisit the issue, it missed this opportunity.
36. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the poor service and communication provided and offered the resident £40 in compensation at stage 1. It increased its offer to £100 at stage 2. However, this amount does not reflect the significant impact on the resident caused by the  failings identified in this investigation. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge these or take any meaningful steps to get the defect addressed during the complaints process is evidence of maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s reports of a defective roof.  On balance, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £850 in compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused while handling reports of a defective roof. This amount is in line with our Remedies guidance for maladministration at the higher end.

Landlord’s complaint handling

37. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process under which it was required to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. At stage the landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
38. In her 5 January 2023 email to the landlord, resident made clear she was unhappy with its handling of the defect and her related complaint, however, the landlord failed to log a stage 2 complaint. Its complaints policy states that a complaint is when a resident says they are unhappy with something that it had or had not done that it had not put right. As such the resident’s communication met its definition of a complaint, this is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints policy.
39. When the resident reiterated her dissatisfaction on 16 January 2023, again there is no evidence that the landlord logged a stage 2 complaint. In response to the resident’s next contact on 30 January 2023, the landlord apologised for  not providing a response and told her complaint would be dealt with as soon as possible. However, it did not provide any timescale which was inappropriate.
40. The landlord then failed to provide its final stage 2 response until more than 2 months later on 5 April 2023. This was 64 working days after the resident’s 5 January 2023 complaint which far exceeds the 20 working days timescale stated in its complaints policy. Furthermore, this Service has seen no evidence to show the landlord requested the resident’s agreement to an extension of the timescale in its policy.  The landlord however did acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its final response and offered £135 in compensation for delay in providing the response and for failing to escalate the resident’s complaint when originally requested. However, bearing in mind the extent of the delay, the redress provided was insufficient to address this complaint.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s reports of a defective roof.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

43. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology in relation to the failings identified in this review.
    2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £950 made up of:
       1. £850 for the stress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling the resident’s reports of a defective roof.
       2. £100 for the stress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling the related complaint.
    3. Review its policy and process around the DLP and consider including timescales for defects to be addressed by the developer and details of any action or intervention by the landlord when defects reported within the DLP are not addressed by the developer.
    4. Provide to this service evidence of compliance with the above orders.
44. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord ensures it has the resident’s  health conditions correctly recorded on its system.