Bromford Housing Group Limited (202326987)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326987

Bromford Housing Group Limited

6 September 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 is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. Reports of staff misconduct and communication regarding belongings in the property.
    2. A request for an adaptation.
    3. The resident’s request for permissions for a shed.
    4. Reports of repairs within the property.
  2. The report has also taken the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint into consideration.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. She has lived in the 3 storey, 5-bed house with her 4 children since 22 February 2021. The landlord has confirmed the resident and her family have health conditions.
  2. In May 2023, the landlord raised concern with the resident about the number of belongings in the property. It believed there was a health and safety risk due to the family’s mobility issues. In July 2023, it visited the resident to discuss repairs within the property and then asked for the repairs to be raised. In August 2023, it raised concern about the size of the shed that was being built in the back garden (to house a hot tub and gym to help with the family’s medical needs). The landlord asked for it to be removed or reduced in size.
  3. By November 2023, the resident was still chasing the landlord for the completion of the repairs reported in July 2023. She contacted this Service and said she had made a complaint but had not received a response. We contacted the landlord and asked it to respond by 21 December 2023. The complaint related to communication regarding the belongings in the property, a request for an adaptation, communications relating to the shed and reports of damp and mould. As a resolution, the resident wanted a different neighbourhood coach (NC), the adaptation to be carried out, the repairs to be done and for the landlord to allow the shed to remain in the garden.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 18 December 2023. It confirmed its offer regarding the adaptation, its stance on the shed and its assessment of the mould and a leak from the bath. It partially upheld the complaint and said it would monitor the works to completion.
  5. On 11 January 2024, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. When she did not receive a response, she contacted this Service for assistance. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 May 2024. It reviewed the investigation and the complaint handling. It acknowledged its failure in escalating the complaint and responding within timescale. During the review, the resident told the landlord she wanted to move and was in Band A with Home Choice – the landlord agreed to work with the local authority. The landlord re-addressed the concerns from the initial complaint and provided an update on each which included the attempts made to complete the repairs. The landlord offered £150 for the poor complaint handling.
  6. On 28 May 2024, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She said the issues were still outstanding and it was affecting her health. She wanted the landlord to ‘fix things’ and allow the shed to remain in the garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referred to the impact the ongoing repairs and property condition had on her health. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, wellbeing, or personal injury. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she should seek legal advice. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
  2. The resident asked the landlord for an internal transfer as she believed her home was unsafe and unsuitable for her and her family. As per paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. As this issue was not raised in the initial complaint or escalation request, it falls outside of the remit of this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should contact the landlord to raise a new complaint.
  3. This Service received historical information regarding repairs to the property. As per paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As such, the focus of this investigation will be May 2023 (6 months prior to the complaint being made) to 20 May 2024 – the date of the final complaint response.

Staff misconduct and communication – belongings

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this Service’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord initially raised concern with the number of belongings in the property in May 2023. Aware of the family’s mobility issues and on finding the property cluttered with building materials, boxes, and suitcases, it raised its concern with the resident. The Ombudsman finds the action of the landlord reasonable. It demonstrated a justified concern that in the event of a fire, the family could be hindered. The Ombudsman finds the actions of the landlord in raising a safeguarding concern and a referral to the fire service appropriate. It is noted that the resident agreed to the referrals.
  3. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord provided its reasoning for the concern. It advised it was unable to evidence the NC’s conversation from the visit, therefore apologised, and assured the resident it had not intended to cause any upset. The Ombudsman finds the lack of evidence a record keeping concern. The landlord failed to address the resident’s request for a new NC. This is likely to have caused frustration for the resident who believed she was being ignored. The lack of response to this request contributed to the complaint escalation – this could have been avoided.
  4. However, in the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the outcome of the initial complaint. It advised that although it would not normally change a resident’s NC, as the staff member who visited her had left, a new NC was in place. It was appropriate of the landlord to explain its stance on the matter, but by confirming the change in the staffing, it showed a resolution-focused outcome.
  5. In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to staff conduct and communication regarding belongings in the property. Its reasoning was justified, and it was obliged to raise the concern to protect the family’s safety. A lack of evidence hindered the landlord from providing a definitive conclusion on exactly what was said during the visit but it acknowledged that this was a sensitive issue and the outcome the resident sought (a change in her NC) was delivered.

Adaptations

  1. It is noted there is a fully adapted bathroom on the ground floor and 2 stairlifts fitted to allow access to all floors. In November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to install a shower tray in the first-floor bathroom – she said it was too difficult accessing the bath. The landlord visited the property and in the stage 1 complaint response, it confirmed that as a goodwill gesture it would remove the bath and install a low-profile shower tray. This was a reasonable gesture and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord went beyond what it was obliged to do as the property had already been adapted to meet the needs of the family.
  2. The landlord has stated the offer was made on the agreement that the resident would complete the tiling after the install. It stated the resident agreed initially, but later said she was not willing to do it. While this is not disputed, there is no evidence of this discussion or agreement – this is a record keeping concern.
  3. The landlord tried to arrange the work, but its internal records state the resident refused any appointments until it agreed to do the tiling. It said it had been agreed that due to her being in the middle of tiling the bathroom, she would complete it. The resident said she was going to remove the tiles as she was not staying in the property so the landlord could do the tiling. The landlord confirmed it had agreed to the work as a goodwill gesture as the bath was fully functional. It advised that if she was not willing to complete the tiling, the tray would not be installed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable compromise but it would have been beneficial for the landlord to have recorded the agreement initially made.
  4. In the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed its offer regarding the shower tray. It said that if the resident still required the adaptation, she would need an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment which could be requested via the local authority. The landlord has confirmed that no further progress has been made in relation to the shower tray and the offer was withdrawn.
  5. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a request for an adaptation. With the property already adapted, the landlord still agreed to replace the bath with a low-profile shower tray. This was over and above what the landlord was obliged to do. The landlord should have retained a record of what it says was originally agreed, but the approach to offer a compromise to the resident was reasonable and in any case, the lack of records did not affect the overall decision-making on what it was willing to do.

Garden shed

  1. During a home visit in May 2023, the landlord confirmed building materials and the shed were in boxes in the property hallway. Its internal records show it contacted the local authority planning team to see if permission had been requested for the shed. Its evidence suggests dimensions were provided but no planning application had been received. The landlord noted it was advised to open a case if it thought planning permission may be needed – a case was submitted via the website however there is no evidence of a response being received.
  2. The resident told the landlord she had been given permission to build the shed by a surveyor. The landlord was asked to provide this Service with all correspondence linked to the shed and permissions given but limited information has been offered. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the information provided when permission was given was clear and in line with the landlord’s expectations. This is a record keeping failure and raises concern with the landlord’s approach and communication regarding alteration requests.
  3. On 17 July 2023, the landlord visited the resident. It told her a neighbour had complained about the noise from the building of the shed. The resident told the landlord that although this was not needed, she had received planning permission. The records are not clear as to whether the resident meant permission was granted by the landlord or the local authority. There is no evidence of the landlord exploring this further which demonstrated lack of an in-depth investigation.
  4. During a further visit on 14 August 2023, the landlord told the resident the shed was a fire risk and needed to be 2 metres from the boundary at the back and sides. It was reasonable of the landlord to raise its concerns due to the presence of electrics, combustible building materials and surroundings and the proximity to the property and neighbouring properties. The resident said she may take it down but said the family would not be able to stay in the property for health reasons. The landlord confirmed it would calculate the dimensions and then inform the OT of the size it should be. The OT confirmed it only dealt with the inside of the property and the hot tub/gym may have been suggested by the physiotherapist. There is no evidence of the landlord pursuing this with the physiotherapist – this was a further example of the landlord not following up on information received.
  5. On 30 August 2023, the landlord’s evidence states it sent a letter to the resident regarding the shed and the criteria for the build. Despite the Ombudsman requesting a copy of this letter, it was not provided by the landlord. This is a record keeping concern and leaves the Service unable to comment on the content.
  6. On 13 October 2023, the landlord received a call from the resident. She said the OT had advised her to build the shed and that despite receiving permission, she had now been told it had to be downsized. She said she was still paying the builder while the job was on hold and the materials were getting damaged.
  7. In the stage 1 response on 18 December 2023, the landlord confirmed its concern regarding the size of the shed. It acknowledged permission had been given by the landlord’s surveyor, however the sizes stipulated had not been adhered to. It asked the resident to put this right, or it would ask her to remove it. The Ombudsman finds this a reasonable request.
  8. During a call on 10 April 2024, the resident told the landlord that the local authority had attended partway through the build and said there was no issue so the shed was finished. She was then told by the landlord to remove it. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the local authority to verify what the resident had said. This is a service failure, as the landlord again did not demonstrate a thorough investigation of the shed permission.
  9. In its final complaint response on 20 May 2024, the landlord confirmed the specific dimensions had not originally been provided, but guidance on sheds that included power and water had been, and this included information on the required distance from boundaries. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time which was likely to have caused inconvenience to her. The final complaint response confirmed the advice given to the resident following a visit from the landlord. It agreed it had not been clear on the size requirements but said it had been clear on its expectations in subsequent conversations. It agreed to continue working with the resident to ensure the shed was reduced or removed.
  10. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s poor communication regarding permissions for the shed. While it is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to advise on the acceptable size of sheds, it does expect the landlord to be clear in its communication to residents from the start of any alterations process.
  11. It is noted that despite the landlord asking the resident to downsize the shed in December 2023, the build continued through to completion in April 2024. Due to the fire safety concerns, it was reasonable of the landlord to confirm it would continue to work with her in relation to the size and location of the shed. However, the Ombudsman’s finding is based on poor record keeping, unclear communication, a failure to follow up on claims made by the resident and a failure to provide this Service with evidence when requested. Considering the findings, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident.

Repairs

  1. During a visit on 17 July 2023, the resident raised her repair concerns with the landlord. These included issues with the banister, the front door, a leak under the bath (which the resident said was causing damp and mould), and an insufficient extractor fan in the bathroom. The landlord’s evidence showed it appropriately raised repairs for the door and the leak from the bath on 20 July 2023. However, there is no evidence of a repair for the extractor fan – this was unreasonable as the landlord did not promptly address all the repairs reported. The landlord’s internal notes confirm repair appointments made for 13 September 2023.
  2. On 12 September 2023, the resident advised the landlord she could not make the appointment on 13 September 2023 – the landlord rearranged the appointment to 2 October 2023 and confirmed this by text message. This was the earliest all-day appointment for when a female member of staff was also available (requested by the resident). This was therefore a reasonable appointment timescale to complete the repairs. However, on 7 November 2023, in her contact with this Service, the resident confirmed the damp and mould was still in the bathroom and the banister still needed repairing. With no evidence to confirm why the repairs were still outstanding, the Ombudsman finds the delay unreasonable.
  3. The landlord’s evidence shows the resident was still chasing the landlord about the damp and mould on 14 November 2023. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as this matter was raised in July 2023. She told the landlord the issue with the leak in the bathroom continued and the mould was spreading. The landlord asked the resident if it could visit to discuss all the issues and although a date was agreed, it was cancelled due to staff illness. It is not clear from the evidence if the visit was rearranged and if it was, what was discussed to provide a resolution.
  4. On 16 November 2023, the landlord completed a damp and mould proforma with the resident. She said she thought there was a leak behind the walls and although the landlord confirmed it could see signs of a leak on the ceiling, it concluded the mould was not bad. The resident said the smell intensified when the shower was on, but the landlord noted it could not detect a smell during the visit. The resident submitted a complaint on 30 November 2023 which included the outstanding repairs.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 December 2023, the landlord said it had inspected the damp and mould in the bathroom on 7 December 2023. It confirmed there was evidence of a leak from the bathroom on the second floor. It advised the work to install the shower tray would resolve the issue, and it would raise a repair for the ceiling in the downstairs shower room. This was reasonable but the landlord did not provide a date for the shower tray which meant it was unable to state when the leak would be resolved. In relation to the damp and mould, it said this was present only around the silicone and the tiles could be cleaned using a suitable cleaner. The landlord confirmed there was no other concern for damp or mould in the bathroom.
  6. The landlord’s complaint response focused on the damp and mould. It did not address the other repairs requested by the resident (banister, front door and for the arranged appointments to be completed). The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as it did not provide the resident with a full update and indicated that it did not have full oversight of the outstanding repairs. This is likely to have increased the resident’s frustration.
  7. Due to the lack of progress, the complaint was escalated. It was only in the final complaint response in May 2024, that the landlord told the resident it had referred the issues with the front door and banister to the National House Building Council (NHBC). Although the action of the landlord was reasonable (due to it being a new build), the Ombudsman finds this an example of poor communication with the resident. It would have been appropriate to inform her of this action earlier than it did to show that it was trying to make progress. The claim was rejected leaving the landlord responsible for the repairs.
  8. The landlord subsequently evidenced reasonable efforts to complete the work which was assigned to a contractor. The contractor attended but informed the landlord that the resident refused access until it agreed to the tiling of the bathroom after the shower tray install. Further attempts were evidenced; however, access was not successful. It confirmed its assessment of the damp and mould and advised the extractor fan was sufficient. The landlord explained it was unable to leave the repairs as the property would be in a state of disrepair. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident for her co-operation in allowing access. It was appropriate of the landlord to advise the resident of the potential action that could be taken if her tenancy obligations were breached.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of repairs within the property. There is evidence of repairs not being raised, poor record keeping, a delay in referring repairs to NHBC and a lack of communication with the resident. The offer of the shower tray was withdrawn; however, the landlord did not follow up on the separate commitment to address a leak from the bathroom – this left the repair outstanding. In recognition of the service failures and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a compensation payment should be made to the resident.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has provided evidence which confirms the resident raised a formal complaint on 13 October 2023. The landlord told the resident on the same day that a complaint had been opened, however there is no evidence of a response. This raises concern with the landlord’s complaint management and communications. The landlord’s confirmation led her to believe her complaint was being investigated and so not receiving a response is likely to have increased her frustration. This led to her investing more time and effort in chasing the landlord before approaching this Service on 7 November 2023.
  2. After contact from this Service on 30 November 2023, the landlord logged the complaint. It acknowledged the complaint within its policy timescale and said it would respond by 15 December 2023, however the response was not sent until 18 December 2023. The delay was initially not acknowledged or explained, and the landlord did not offer an apology. The landlord’s policy states if more time is needed then this will be discussed with the resident, but there is no evidence to confirm this happened. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 11 January 2024 and was advised to escalate the complaint with the landlord, which she did the same day. This was not actioned by the landlord and the resident contacted this Service again on 28 February 2024. We contacted the landlord on 3 April 2024 and the complaint was escalated and acknowledged on 9 April 2024. The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 April 2024 to ensure its understanding of the escalation and the desired outcome. This was reasonable and was in line with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) but the prior delays were inappropriate.
  4. On 1 May 2024, the landlord made a further call to the resident to discuss the complaint. The evidence provided by the landlord confirmed it explained more time was needed to investigate it in full. This was in line with its policy and there is an expectation within the Code to keep a resident updated. The landlord’s records confirm a response was agreed within 10 days. It is noted that this agreement was later disputed by the resident who said she did not agree to the extension. While this is not disputed, the Ombudsman can only make assessments based on the evidence provided and therefore cannot establish a failing on the part of the landlord in this regard.
  5. The final complaint response was provided on 20 May 2024 which was in line with the extension timescale. The landlord demonstrated a thorough investigation into the substantive issues and the complaint handling. It highlighted service failures relating to late acknowledgements and responses, and in actioning the escalation request. However, it did not refer to the complaint that was initially raised in October 2023 or the need for the resident to involve this Service. This raises concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping and complaint management.
  6. The landlord took this final opportunity to address all the points raised. It confirmed the discussion held with the resident during a home visit on 9 May 2024, including those that had not been included in the original complaint. It referred to its attempts at completing the repairs and the difficulties faced in terms of access to the property. Where the landlord was unable to provide the outcome the resident wanted, it included relevant signposting information to support services – this was a reasonable approach.
  7. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord addressed its poor complaint handling and identified several service failures. While the landlord demonstrated its commitment to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair and put things right, it did not provide evidence of how it would learn from the outcome of the complaint. Notwithstanding this, in recognition of the service failures, it offered the resident £150 compensation. The Ombudsman finds this offer proportionate and at a level we would expect for a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of staff misconduct and communication regarding belongings in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a request for an adaptation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for permissions for a shed.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of repairs within the property.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology for the failures identified in the report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 in compensation. This is made up of the following:
      1. £100 for the failures associated with the communication relating to the shed.
      2. £250 for the delays in repairs, poor communication and for the stress and inconvenience caused.
      3. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should:
    1. arrange an inspection of the property by a senior member of management to confirm all the work that remains outstanding;
    2. write to the resident to confirm the repairs that will be completed to address the concerns raised, communicating the appointment dates to ensure no further delays are experienced;
    3. confirm what arrangements it intends to make to post-inspect the work to ensure it has been completed to an acceptable standard.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the above orders within the timescale specified.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 it awarded in its final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress finding for complaint handling is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should consider introducing a disclaimer which would be signed by the landlord and resident in advance of any ad-hoc work to the property. The disclaimer should include any agreement made between the parties in advance of any work starting. This should then be saved on record as evidence.
  3. The landlord should review its communication with residents in relation to the construction of sheds. The communication should be clear and should include the necessary guidance for residents (including size restrictions).
  4. If the landlord continues to have concerns relating to the shed, but no progress is made, it should consider seeking legal advice as to what action is possible. The landlord should maintain clear lines of communication with the resident as to the progress on this matter.
  5. The landlord should consider delivering complaint refresher training to all staff involved in the management of complaints. The training should focus on the identification of a complaint, the timescales from the landlord’s policy and expectations of the Code in terms of communication with the resident.
  6. The landlord should respond to this Service within 4 weeks to confirm its intentions against the recommendations made.