Bromford Housing Group Limited (202338851)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338851

Bromford Housing Group Limited

6 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of her request to stay permanently in her decant property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a 5-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 21 October 2021 and the property (the permanent property) is a 2–bedroom, second-floor flat. The resident has a child who attends a specialist SEN (special educational needs) school. He has support from child mental health services.
On 12 January 2023, the resident experienced a burst pipe in her bathroom. Consequently, the landlord placed her in temporary accommodation, first into a hotel and then a house in a different local authority area (the decant property).
On 4 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that she should return to her permanent property as it had completed the repairs there. The resident asked to stay at the decant property on a permanent basis, through a management transfer. After the landlord declined the request, the resident submitted a complaint on 30 October 2023. She stated that the landlord had told her she could stay permanently at the decant property. She also noted that a move back would impact her son’s social and emotional needs.
The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2024:
1. It confirmed it would consider management moves in exceptional circumstances where there was an overriding urgent housing need to allocate an alternative home to existing customers.
2. It set out the grounds why its Lettings Team declined a management move.
3. It noted the resident had signed a Temporary Decant Licence Agreement. This stated that she would only stay there until it completed repairs to the permanent property.
4. It concluded there was no service failure in its handling of the resident’s request to stay in the decant property. However, it offered £50 compensation for the delay of 2 months in sending the complaint response.
On 13 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her contention that the landlord misinformed her about the decant agreement and had disregarded her son’s needs.
The landlord, through its solicitor, served a Notice to Quit (NTQ) on the decant property which expired on 7 April 2024. As the resident did not leave, the landlord implemented a use and occupation charge. It also served a NTQ on the resident’s permanent property.
On 10 May 2024, the landlord sent the stage 2 response:
1. It reiterated the resident signed a decant agreement which meant that she would return to the permanent property.
2. It reiterated there was no evidence it offered her a permanent managed move.
3. It confirmed it served notice on both properties as the resident had not returned. As part of the legal process, it carried out a Proportionality Assessment and Equality Duty Assessment.
4. It highlighted that it had to use a fair and transparent process when awarding management moves.
5. It stated it would provide removal costs to return to the permanent property. It would not charge for use and occupation of the decant property prior to 8 April 2024. It would stop the charge for the decant property when the resident had moved out.
6. It offered compensation of £125 which comprised:
  1. £50 – delay in stage 1 response.
  2. £25 – delay in stage 1 acknowledgement.
  3. £25 – delay in stage 2 acknowledgement.
  4. £25 – delay in stage 2 response.
The resident subsequently moved back to her permanent property. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 October 2024. She stated:
1. The housing officer told her that she could decide whether to move back to her permanent property or stay in the decant property. She was told she “should make herself at home”, in the decant property.
2. She believed that landlord’s policy stated that if someone was decanted for a certain amount of time, they then would be eligible for a managed move.
3. She had spent money decorating and buying bespoke furniture for the decant property.
4. The landlord did not provider her with updates on repairs to permanent property, or timeframes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident raised a prior complaint on 4 July 2023. The complaint concerned the time taken to conduct an asbestos test and repair the leak. She also complained she could not access the property. She had brought limited items as the landlord told her she would be in a hotel for a weekend. Therefore, over time, her possessions had been damaged (from asbestos and mould), and she could not salvage them. She also complained the landlord did not update her on the works to her property or on her damaged goods.
The landlord responded on 14 August 2023. It provided the dates it made safe and cleared the asbestos, after a drying out period, and of quotes received for the refurbishment works. It also confirmed it could not assess damage to physical and mental health within the complaints procedure; however, it could consider damage to possessions, and distress and inconvenience. The landlord advised the resident she could escalate the complaint to stage 2. There is no evidence that resident escalated this complaint.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she needed to redecorate after moving back to her permanent address. She has also not received reimbursement for lost items.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint that completed the landlord’s complaint procedure on 10 May 2024. This is because landlords need to have fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before the Ombudsman can investigate the matters complained about. This means landlords should first consider the complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. Residents can raise any new issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure directly with the landlord. They can raise a new formal complaint or escalate an existing complaint.

The resident’s request to stay permanently in the decant property

On 12 January 2023, the resident experienced a burst pipe in her bathroom. The emergency plumber could not carry out a full repair as they saw asbestos in the bathroom. Consequently, the landlord placed her in temporary accommodation in a hotel. The resident states that she and her son found it difficult living in a hotel room. As the landlord did not make clear when she could return and had not compensated her, she instructed a housing solicitor. Following contact from the solicitor, the landlord agreed to find temporary accommodation within its housing stock.
On 5 April 2023, the resident signed a decant licence agreement after she accepted a decant property. This property was a 2-bedroom house in a different council area. The agreement states:
1. “2. The decant property shall be occupied by you and your family for so long as is necessary in order to complete the work at the premises.”
2. “5.Upon receipt by you of a written notice from us confirming that all works have been satisfactorily completed at the premises and requesting you vacate the decant property and return to the premises you shall move out of the decant property and back into the premises. The written notice shall give not less than 28 days’ notice of the requirement to return to the premises and we shall retain, at our absolute discretion, an ability to extend the 28 day period for return in exceptional circumstances. You shall be notified in writing of any extension of time and the date of expiry of such further notice.”
3. “6. Upon expiry of the notice your right to occupy the decant property under this agreement shall automatically determine and we shall be at liberty to issue proceedings in the county court for recovery of possession of the decant property and, in addition, and at the same time, we shall issue proceedings for recovery of possession of the premises on the basis that you will have ceased to occupy the premises as your only or principal home and as a consequence will have lost security of tenure in the premises.”
The resident applied to the council in which the decant property was in to transport her son to his school. On 15 May 2023, it agreed to do so.
Under the decant agreement, the resident was obliged to return to her permanent property on completion of repairs. The agreement made clear the landlord may take legal action should she not do so after expiry of a notice. On 18 August 2023, the landlord advised that it had practically completed the repairs, but it would complete remaining works by 22 August 2023. On 4 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that she should now return to her permanent property as it had completed all repairs. It was in accordance with the terms of the decant licence agreement that the landlord asked the resident to return.
The resident challenged the decision to return. She provided a letter from a creative arts psychotherapist dated 12 October 2023. The psychotherapist opposed the son returning due to the risk of upset caused to him and elevated levels of self-harm. However, if this was not possible, the psychotherapist recommended the resident be transferred to a 2 or 3-bedroom house with a garden. The resident also provided a letter from the safeguarding lead at the school. They considered that it would be beneficial for the resident’s son to stay in the decant accommodation. They noted he benefited from the safety of having a garden.
The landlord’s Lettings Team considered the resident’s request to stay permanently in her property as a management transfer application. Allowing the resident to stay permanently in the decant accommodation would be outside the regular allocations process – via the landlord’s choice-based lettings scheme or through the council. It was therefore appropriate, and fair to other applicants, that the Lettings Team did not immediately agree the request but assessed the request.
The landlord’s Lettings Policy with regards to Management Moves states:
1. “There may be exceptional circumstances where there is an overriding urgent housing need to allocate an alternative home to existing customers, examples are but not limited to:
  1. serious risks posed by remaining in their existing home, such as a threat to life or serious harm because of domestic abuse or harassment.
  2. a customer’s existing home is in disrepair due to fire or flood or other disaster.”
2. “Each case will be considered on its own merits and will require supporting evidence, the request will be made by the Neighbourhood & Community Operations Manager and approved by the Letting Team Leader.”
3. “Management moves will typically form 10% or less of overall lettings in any one year. The usual route for existing tenants to secure an alternative home will be via the choice-based lettings scheme or through an application to join a local authority’s housing register where the customer may fall into one of the reasonable preference categories as set out in the Housing Act 1996[3].”
The Lettings Policy essentially states that the landlord should only award a management transfer when there is an urgent housing need that overrides the usual transfer process. The Lettings Policy mentions potential management transfer situations where a resident should leave their home urgently, but is not limited to this. There are situations where a resident may be unable to, or request that they not be required to return to their original home, as in the resident’s case. The key issues are housing need and risk. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord considered the resident’s request to stay in the decant property permanently as a management transfer request.
The landlord has provided evidence that between 16 and 27 October 2023, it considered the evidence provided by the resident. In assessing the resident’s complaint, we have not sought to definitively and unilaterally decide whether it should have agreed the resident’s request. This remained at the landlord’s discretion. It would have needed to take into account a range of factors, some of which are beyond the scope of this investigation. We have assessed the appropriateness and reasonableness of the landlord’s decision-making process, taking account of its policies, procedures, and good practice.
In this case, the resident sent information on her son’s condition to support her management transfer application. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment. The Ombudsman does not have the power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Act; Only the courts can make that decision. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Act. Where on notice, it must consider when making decisions and providing a service whether its decision making / actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. The landlord was also required to consider appropriate reasonable adjustments.
An internal email dated 27 October 2023 listed the reasons the Lettings Team declined the resident’s request to stay permanently at the decant accommodation. These were:
1. An unauthorised alteration by the resident had caused the leak and decant in the first instance (the resident’s legal representative in her claim disputed this).
2. It had not provided anything in writing to the resident that confirmed a permanent move. She had signed a temporary decant licence.
3. The resident would be moving from a flat to a house.
4. It was not aware that the resident had registered for a transfer with the council which the decant property was in. The council may not accept the resident on its housing register should she apply.
5. The council for the decant accommodation had thousands of applicants on its housing register. It scrutinised the landlord’s letting returns. The council had also challenged the landlord’s management move percentage and reasons given the previous year.
6. If it approved the resident’s application, the council would assess this as “queue-jumping” for an applicant who had not even lived in their area. There would be applicants who had been on the council’s housing register who had been waiting longer and who may have had higher need.
7. The supporting evidence did not warrant a management move. It would breach its Lettings Policy if it approved the move.
The landlord took into account that the decant agreement was inherently temporary. It noted that there was nothing that overrode this. It was appropriate that the landlord considered this as the decant agreement provided the contractual right to stay at the decant accommodation.
The landlord further noted that the council for the decant property reviewed its (the landlord’s) housing allocations (in its area). The landlord considered how the council would respond if it allowed the resident to stay in the decant property permanently. This was reasonable as the landlord is required by councils and also the regulator of housing to be fair and transparent in its housing allocations. The requirement to be fair and transparent provided the context of the resident’s management transfer application.
The landlord had resolved the risk from the condition of the permanent property by completing repairs. However, it was also required to consider its duties under the Equality Act, as noted above. In particular, it was required to consider the impact of a return. The Lettings Team in the email exchange of 26-27 October 2023 noted it had not received evidence from medical experts which would be accepted for a housing application. It acknowledged the resident’s son would be upset about moving; however, it noted that he had already managed a move. It also noted that the psychotherapist recommended a transfer if the resident could not stay at the decant accommodation. The landlord further noted that there were “hundreds of residents” in similar situations, and it was not feasible to management move all of them. The Lettings Team therefore considered the landlord’s support should be in respect of a transfer application. It is evident that it gave consideration to the supporting evidence provided by the resident, which was appropriate. In particular it took a view on the level of risk and whether it would be reasonable to award a management transfer.
On 1 November 2023, the landlord served a notice on the resident which expired on 29 November 2023. It confirmed it had declined her request to stay at the decant property. It would levy use and occupation charges of £17.07 a day if she stayed in the property after the notice expired. Having declined the resident’s request, it was in line with the decant agreement that the landlord served a 28-day notice. It was also fair that the landlord made clear the consequence if the resident did not return, specifically that she would have to pay a use and occupation charge. This enabled the resident to make an informed choice.
The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint on 10 November 2023. She said a housing officer had told her she could stay at the decant property permanently if she wanted to. She wanted to as her son had settled and thrived there, and a move back would impact his social and emotional needs. The resident added that she had spent money on the property. Therefore, she was unhappy the Lettings Team had not changed its decision. On 12 November 2023, the landlord extended the return date to 13 December 2023.
The Ombudsman’s understands the landlord in discussion with the resident referred to its relationship with the council for the decant property regarding housing allocations. On 6 December 2023, the resident stated that she had contacted the council. It had neither her property nor the decant property on its database. She therefore disputed the landlord’s position that it rejected her management move request on the basis that she did not meet the council’s lettings criteria. She stated she felt the landlord had been dishonest and she did not intend to vacate. On 12 December 2023, the landlord informed the resident of its criteria for a managed move. It directed her to its Lettings Policy where she could see the criteria.
The resident was under the impression the landlord had attributed the decision to decline her management transfer to the council. By referring her to its Lettings Policy, it sought to clarify any misunderstanding. In particular, this action made clear that it relied on its own criteria.
The resident appealed the decision to decline her management transfer application and submitted further supporting information from her son’s school. She continued to stay at the decant property.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 24 January 2024. It relayed the Lettings Team’s decision. It highlighted it would consider management moves in exceptional circumstances where there was an overriding urgent housing need to allocate an alternative home to existing customers. An example was serious risks posed by remaining in their existing home, such as a threat to life or serious harm resulting from domestic abuse or harassment. The landlord confirmed it had considered the information provided. It assessed the resident did not fall under the risks that would qualify her for a management move under its policy.
The landlord also noted that the terms of the decant agreement. It noted the agreement stipulated the resident would return to her permanent property, where she had security of tenure, on completion of repairs.
The landlord in the complaint response stated councils scrutinised it over letting returns. It stated the council for the decant property had challenged it for exceeding its quota for management moves. That council had 6,620 customers in Band A waiting to be rehoused in a 2-bed property and 6,800 customers waiting in Band B. The landlord stated if it approved the management move, the council may consider it “queue jumping”.
By referring to the management transfer criteria, the license agreement and the relationship with the council, the landlord explained why it declined the resident’s management move request. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident understood the landlord had shifted the responsibility onto the council for her request. Nonetheless it was reasonable that the landlord confirmed its relationship with the local authority as this provided the context to its decision.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s claim that a housing officer told her she could remain permanently at the decant accommodation. It noted there was no evidence of the discussion. It was important that the landlord acknowledge the resident’s claim as her expectations had been raised. Its response was reasonable, as there is no evidence that it confirmed the resident could stay permanently. The resident also had the opportunity to check her tenancy status; there is also no evidence she asked the landlord to confirm in writing that she could stay permanently.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2024. She highlighted that the landlord misinformed her about her decant, and that it had disregarded her son’s needs. She confirmed she wanted to stay at the decant accommodation. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and confirmed it would reply by 15 March 2024.
The decant license agreement allowed the landlord to commence legal action against the resident for not returning to her permanent property after the notice expired. It also had the option of taking action if the resident was not using her permanent property as her main and principal home. On 7 March 2024, the landlord served a NTQ on the resident’s decant property as the licence had expired. It also served a NTQ on her permanent property on the ground of abandonment. The expiry date was 5 April 2024.
In the interim, 28 March 2024 the landlord carried out a Public Sector Duty Assessment and Proportionality Assessment. Part 11 of the Equality Act created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to equality and the elimination of any behaviours prohibited under the Act. The landlord has provided evidence that its solicitor reviewed the assessments it had carried out.
The assessment forms confirm the landlord considered “steps taken to remove or minimise any disadvantages suffered by the Resident (or their household) that are connected to their disability and/or different from the needs of persons who do not suffer such disadvantages”. The landlord noted it had considered the management transfer request. It noted the resident’s son received support from mental health services and that he attended a specialist school.
The landlord also reviewed the “steps taken to meet the needs of the Resident and/or persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it”. It noted it had corresponded with the school’s safeguarding lead. It also said it had signposted the resident to the council for her permanent accommodation as she considered the property was no longer suitable. These actions were appropriate as it was informed there would be some adverse impact if the resident returned to the permanent property.
In the forms, the landlord stated it had asked the resident whether she was receiving support and advice. It listed other agencies the resident had contacted and sought advice from. It also noted that on 6 March 2024, it confirmed with the resident that she was receiving private and workplace support for depression; she therefore did not want to the landlord to provide support. In carrying out a Public Sector Duty Assessment and Proportionality Assessment, and seeking approval from its solicitor, the landlord showed regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
On 10 May 2024, the resident said she would return to her permanent address if the landlord wrote off her use and occupation charges between 14 December and 7 April 2024.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 10 May 2024. It reiterated that the resident had signed the decant licence agreement and there was no evidence it had offered her a management move. It highlighted that it had to use fair and transparent processes when awarding management moves. It confirmed it would now follow the legal process. The landlord confirmed it would provide removal costs to return to the permanent address and would not charge use and occupation for the decant property prior to 8 April 2024. It would stop the charge for the latter when she had moved out.
The landlord through the stage 2 complaint response made clear to the resident it was now pursuing legal action to recover possession of the decant property. It also made clear that she would pay a use and occupation charge for the decant property, from 8 April 2024, if she did not return. It thereby ensured the resident had the necessary information to make an informed decision what to do next.
Under the decant license agreement, the landlord could have charged the resident for staying in the property after the first notice expired. After extension, this was from 14 December 2023. It was fair that it agreed to defer the charge to 8 April 2024, given it was considering her appeal against the Lettings Team decision. The landlord on 17 May 2024 noted that the resident had returned to her permanent address and returned the key to her decant accommodation.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that when in the decant accommodation, she checked the landlord’s website. She stated it said that if someone were in decant accommodation for a particular period, the landlord would offer the property permanently. She further states this information disappeared after the landlord updated its website. The Ombudsman is unaware what information the website had at that time. Regardless, the Landlord’s Lettings policy, referred to in this report, is dated 25 July 2023, and was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint.
In summary, it was in accordance with the terms of the decant licence agreement that the landlord asked the resident to return in the first instance. After, the resident asked to stay in the decant accommodation permanently. It was therefore appropriate, and fair to other applicants, that the Lettings Team considered this as a management transfer request. There is evidence that the landlord had regard to the Equality Act when declining the request and pursuing possession of the decant property. It explained to the resident why it declined her management move request. By referring her to its Lettings Policy, it made clear that it made the decision using its own criteria. It was also fair that the landlord made clear the consequence if the resident did not return, specifically that she would have to pay a use and occupation charge. Taken altogether, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It should respond to the complaint within 10 working days at stage 1. It should acknowledge a complaint escalation within 5 days and send the response within 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, it could extend the timescale by a maximum of 10 working days, with the agreement of the resident.
In this case, the landlord did not meet its timeframes for responding to the complaint at both stages. The complaint was concurrent and inextricably linked to the action the landlord was taking on the properties and the management transfer application. The landlord gave clear reasons for declining the resident’s management transfer request in its responses. Nonetheless, the delay in the complaint responses added to the resident’s uncertainty, and it is not evident that the landlord agreed extensions. The landlord recognised the delays and awarded compensation for delays at both stages which totalled £125. This award was proportionate to the delays. It lies within the range of compensation within the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration with no permanent impact. Therefore the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress prior to investigation which resolves the failings in its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to stay permanently in her decant property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the failings in its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends:
1. that the landlord pays the compensation offered within its complaints procedure if it has not already done so.
2. the landlord ensures it contacts residents and agrees extensions in cases where it is unable to meet complaint handling deadlines.