Bromford Housing Group Limited (202302825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302825

Bromford Housing Group Limited

19 December 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it undertake repairs to her outbuilding.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the housing association landlord and occupied a 3-bedroom house. She is a disabled woman who is a wheelchair user. She has fibromyalgia and chronic joint instability which means that she is prone to falls. She is autistic as is her daughter, who was 6 years old at the time of the complaint. Since she referred her complaint to this Service for investigation, she has moved house and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
The resident’s tenancy started in October 2022. Prior to moving into the property, an occupational therapist from the Council’s Adult Social Care team visited the property to complete an assessment. The property had a bathroom upstairs. The resident has described her outhouse as an annexe to her property which had a separate toilet. The toilet was disconnected when she moved into the property. After she moved into the property, she arranged for the toilet to be reconnected, as the downstairs toilet was more accessible for her.
The resident used the outhouse to store items, including her washing machine and tumble dryer. The resident also used the outhouse to charge her electric powered wheelchair. The outhouse was accessible through the kitchen.
Soon after she moved in, she reported that there was damp and mould in her outhouse, which adjoined her property. The landlord attended 3 times during November and December 2022, but it could not complete the repair to seal the damp proof course at that time due to the weather. It completed the works on 6 January 2023. It also raised a job to remove the the panelling on the ceiling of the outhouse.
On 17 January 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said that:
1. The landlord had not removed old insulation panels in the outhouse, fitted by the last tenant, during the property’s void period. During wet weather, the panels absorbed rainwater and then grew mould. Some of the panels became dilapidated and had detached from the ceiling and walls.
2. She wanted the landlord to complete the works without further delay.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 1 February 2023. It said that it apologised for the delay that it had taken in repairing the damp proof course and it would provide feedback to the relevant team so that any development or training needs could be identified. It said that it had followed up the works to remove the panelling and replace the doors with its repairs team. It offered the resident £60 in compensation and an apology.
On 6 March 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord arranged appointments which went ahead on 23 and 24 March 2023 to remove the suspended ceiling and to order materials for a new framed ledge and braced door. It also arranged for a surveyor to attend and assess the works to treat the damp and mould. The resident said that the landlord had not given enough notice of the works to arrange for her to clear the outhouse of her belongings, and she referred the matter to the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO).
The surveyor provided their report to the landlord on 9 May 2023. It said that the outhouse was not a habitable area of the property and inherently would be damp due to environmental factors. They said that the damp proof course was in good condition as were the doors. They recommended that the landlord remove the internal panelling as well as the ceiling covering to allow the walls to dry out.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It acknowledged that it could have offered the resident more support to clear the outbuilding before works could start. It offered to reimburse the resident for any reasonable costs she incurred for clearing the outbuilding.
2. It apologised for its failure to communicate effectively with the resident during the complaints process. This was due to an increase in demand for the service. It has since recruited more staff which should allow it to meet the demands of the service.
3. It accepted that it did not escalate her complaint promptly. It had raised this with its management team.
4. There had been an error with its compensation payment following its stage 1 response and it would include this with the compensation paid at stage 2.
5. It reviewed its compensation award and offered an additional amount.
  1. Offer at stage 1 – £60
  2. Top up for delays – £25
  3. Delays in internal repairs – £80
  4. Delays in escalation to stage 2 – £120
  5. Lack of communication/delays – £100
  6. Delay in responding at stage 2 – £100
  7. Distress and inconvenience – £150

Total amount – £635

Post complaint

The landlord later increased the compensation award to £725. It followed up on the email from Environmental Health but concluded that the measures it had put in place to date were adequate, given that the outhouse was not a habitable living space. However, in January 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to say that it would attend again to inspect the doors and foundation of the property. It did not complete the works, and the resident moved out of the property in August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that the landlord’s failure to complete the works to her outbuilding have had a detrimental impact on her health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to prove legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, where service failure is found, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord’s actions or inaction has caused the resident distress or inconvenience.
In our contact with the resident, she has raised ongoing issues with the landlord extending beyond the landlord’s response at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. The investigation is limited to considering matters that the resident raised during her stage 1 and 2 complaints to the landlord and the landlord’s response to the issues raised. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it undertake repairs to her outhouse.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order the installations in their homes for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and for space heating and heating water. It will also keep in repair the structure and exterior of the home. It says that the resident must keep sheds, stores, or other structures, well-maintained and in a good condition.
A landlord’s repairing obligations are restricted to the ‘dwelling house.’ It is possible that a structure annexed to the main property that has installations for sanitation could be considered part of the dwelling house, however if the toilet was unused and not intended to be functional at the start of the tenancy, and there were other sanitation facilities in the property, this is less likely to be so. However, the landlord should take steps to ensure that their properties are safe.
The landlord showed willingness to meet some of the resident’s requests which is evidenced by the external repairs it carried out on the outhouse. When the resident reported a breach in the damp proof course, it attended within its target response times however it was not able to complete the works until January due to weather conditions. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
It raised a job to remove the panelling on the ceiling and walls of the outhouse in January 2023. This was following the resident’s report that the panelling was dilapidated and soaked. The resident’s view was that the landlord should have removed the panelling during the void period, as the last tenant had installed it. The landlord’s voids team had said that the panelling had not appeared to be dilapidated during the voids inspection. If an incoming tenant disputes the condition of any item, the landlord has an obligation to investigate; but this does not mean it should have repaired the item during the void period if it had not already been flagged to the landlord as needing repair or replacement.
The landlord attended within its target response timescales to make the panelling safe. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its expert surveyor as to what steps to take to resolve the issue, which was to remove the panelling to allow the brick walls to dry out. It raised these works and they were completed in March 2023.
The landlord had considered the works that would need to be undertaken to the outhouse to eradicate damp would be to raise the floor with a damp proof course, insulate the ceiling and walls and install heating and to undertake these works would involve expending considerable resources. Social landlords have limited resources and must manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As the resident had expressed an interest in applying for a Disabled Facilities Grant to convert the outhouse into a wet room, the works to damp proof the outbuilding would be temporary and therefore the landlord may have reasonably considered that the resource implications were not justified.
However, the landlord’s communication with the resident was unclear, and it did not clarify its position on the works until after its internal complaints procedure was exhausted. This unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations that the landlord would undertake these works. The onus would have been on the landlord to ensure it had clearly explained to the resident what work it would do when it said it would ‘complete any other necessary repairs,’ to manage her expectations. It did not do so, which was a failing.
Throughout the entire process, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response in relation to her concerns. She said that while she completed documents the landlord had sent to her about her insurance claim, she had not been told of the outcome. The landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated significantly impacted the resident throughout the process, and led to distress and inconvenience, and the time and trouble trying to get the issues resolved.
There was also ineffective communication between landlord’s teams. It did not share its surveyor’s report or correspondence from Environmental Health with relevant person. It also raised works that it had already undertaken. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights the importance of effective systems in place for data synchronisation across teams and proactive information sharing. The landlord acknowledged that there had been poor communication throughout its handling of the repairs, as well as delays and poor service.
The resident has described how she spent time and effort in following the works up with the landlord. She said that the landlord gave her conflicting information and she was caused inconvenience and distress as its delay in confirming what it would do, meant that she was unable to bring the matter to a conclusion. The impact on her was compounded by her disabilities. She described how her autism affects how she communicates, and that for this reason she found it difficult to chase the landlord for works by email.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to decide whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In deciding this, the Ombudsman considers 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.
In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that during its handling of the resident’s reports, there was poor communication on its behalf, and times in which it provided the resident with conflicting information. It apologised and offered the resident compensation. In addition, it showed some learning, as it committed to providing further staff-training in relation to the conflicting information it had provided.
The landlord had initially offered £60 in compensation but increased this to £425 at stage 2 and later to £550 for the delays. It also directed the resident to its insurers to make a claim for damage to goods, which was reasonable. Further, it investigated covering the resident’s costs for moving items from the outbuilding so that works could start. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies when considering discretionary awards of compensation.
The landlord had also confirmed it would discuss the resident’s complaint with relevant teams and management which would help to highlight any training needs to allow it to improve its service delivery going forward. This shows that it was committed to learning lessons from the complaint to improve outcomes going forward.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that between £100 and £600 should be offered where there has been a failing that has had an adverse effect on the resident, and where a resident has a health condition, or disability, compensation may be at the higher end of the scale due to the greater impact of the service failure on the individual or household.
The landlord’s offer fell within the range of remedies for a service failure of this type; therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to the investigation, that satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days from acknowledgement. Where a complaint is complex, and an extension is needed, it will discuss and agree an extension of the timescales with the resident, but it anticipates that an extension will not exceed 10 working days without good reason.
If a resident is unhappy with their stage 1 response, they can ask the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will ask the resident to outline why they wish to escalate the complaint. On receipt of the response, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint and respond within 20 working days. If an extension is necessary, as before, it will agree this with the resident and will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint and she had to chase for this on 2 occasions. It then recorded the date of the request as being the 20 April 2023, rather than the end of February 2023, and it delayed in responding until 3 July 2024. This was unreasonable. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that landlord should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of request, and an extension should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The resident had complained about poor communication by the landlord during the complaints process. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response where it apologised and explained that this was due to an increased demand on the complaints team, for which it had since recruited extra staff to improve service delivery. It also said that it had arranged staff training highlighting the importance of effective and regular contact and communication. It was positive that the landlord looked to learn from the resident’s complaint to drive service improvements.
The resident has told this Service that she found communication with the landlord difficult because of her autism. She said that she preferred to have telephone calls, but that the landlord preferred to communicate with her by email and there was often a significant delay in it returning her phone calls. As the resident is a disabled person, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made enquiries of this with her to enable it to put reasonable adjustments in place so that she could better access its services. This would have been in line with its reasonable adjustments policy.
In deciding whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord acknowledged its service failings in its complaints response, and apologised, offering £220 in compensation. Its offer of compensation was within the range of remedies outlined in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure that has had an adverse effect on the resident. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, regarding the repairs to the resident’s outhouse, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to the investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, regarding its complaints handling, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the amount of £725 it had offered her in compensation at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
The landlord should contact the resident to update her on her insurance claim.