Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202303289)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303289

Bromford Housing Group Limited

11 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of defects in the new build property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The lease agreement commenced on 14 December 2018, and the resident owns 25% of the property. The property is a 3-bedroom, 3-storey, new build house, constructed by a third-party developer.
  2. The resident resides at the property with her 2 children. The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  3. Between December 2018 and May 2023, several faults were identified and rectified in the property. Mainly, the resident reported that her daughter’s bedroom on the second floor of the property, was cold and unable to be adequately heated. The evidence suggests that when the resident first reported the defect, the property was within the 12-month Defect Liability Period (DLP). The landlord therefore raised the issues directly with the developer.
  4. It is relevant to note by way of context that several residents on the development with the same build specification also reported the same defect. Those residents (a combination of shared ownership leaseholders of the landlord and private owners) set up a “residents’ association” and frequently liaised with the landlord and developer as a group.
  5. On 22 March 2023, as the final outstanding defect repairs were underway, the landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation. It said the offer was in recognition of the additional costs she had incurred during the works, including additional heating costs, distress and inconvenience, and the time she had spent following up the works.
  6. Throughout April 2023, the landlord and resident exchanged several emails in relation to the landlord’s compensation offer. As the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer, she asked it to review it. On 21 April 2023, the landlord provided a calculation breakdown (£200 for energy bills and £800 for distress and inconvenience) and informed the resident that if she remained dissatisfied, she could raise the matter as a complaint or speak to our Service for advice. The landlord also encouraged the resident to continue with her claim through the building warranty provider.
  7. Following contact from the resident, we contacted the landlord on 4 July 2023. We asked it to open a formal complaint to investigate its handling of the resident’s reports of faults and defects in the property.
  8. On 12 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that as outcome to her complaint she wanted:
    1. It to reconsider its compensation offer and take into account the distress and inconvenience caused, and a percentage of the cost for her rent, council tax and energy bills.
    2. Confirmation of the compensation payment offer from the property developer.
    3. An update on what action would be taken about the fire safety of the second-floor bedroom, following a recent surveyor’s report.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. It summarised the timeline of events leading up to the complaint and said:
    1. It appreciated the resident’s concerns that it had taken 3-4 years to resolve the defects in the property. Some delays could be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the time taken to undertake specialist investigations and surveys. However, it could not find any evidence that it had dismissed her concerns and maintained that it had “always acted appropriately” in seeking reassurances from third parties.
    2. Following a review of its previous compensation offer, it increased the offer to £1,200. This was in recognition of the resident “proactively raising, chasing and challenging the decisions and actions taken”. It confirmed that the offer was made on behalf of itself and the developer, and there would not be a separate payment from both parties.
    3. It understood the resident’s concerns about the property having inadequate health and safety measures in relation to fire stopping. The survey it commissioned in 2022 indicated that some of the properties on the development had 4 fire stopping measures missing. However, it assured the resident that her property had “several” measures in place, and the missing measures did not increase the risk of a fire.
  10. On 8 August 2023, the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said:
    1. She disagreed with the landlord’s offer of compensation. Specifically, she said that it had not considered her concerns that 1 of the bedrooms was out of use for 4 years and the house was uninsulated. Therefore, she felt that its offer should include a contribution towards utility bills, rent and council tax. She provided a calculation of her expectations at approximately £10,000.
    2. She was unhappy that the compensation offer was a joint offer from the landlord and developer and felt that both parties should make separate and different offers, as the developer had previously informed her that it would give her a “good will gesture”.
    3. She did not agree with the landlord’s statement that some of the delays were attributable to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. She said this was because she had first raised the issues in December 2018.
    4. She was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling as she claimed that she had received the stage 1 response late, on 7 August 2023.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. It provided a timeline of events and said:
    1. It maintained that it had been “proactive” and acted “appropriately throughout”. However, it understood the resident’s frustrations at the length of time it had taken to identify and complete the works.
    2. It had extended the stage 2 complaint response target date as it was a ‘complex case’.
    3. It maintained that it could not compensate the resident for rent charges and council tax payments. However, it had reviewed the calculation for the reimbursement of energy costs and agreed to increase this. In total, it offered the resident a further £600 compensation (a combined offer of £1,800). This was calculated as follows:
      1. Heating costs – £300.
      2. Distress, inconvenience, time and trouble – £1,000.
      3. Additional stage 2 offer (which included recognition of multiple appointments and enjoyment of home) – £500.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Between 2018 and 2023, we have seen evidence that the resident liaised with the property developer responsible for building the property and the building warranty provider. In accordance with paragraph 41.b of the Scheme, we can only consider complaints that concern matters which relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. Any references made to communications with the property developer and warranty provider are for context only and do not form part of the investigation undertaken in this case. The resident may wish to seek legal advice in relation to the above.
  2. As mentioned earlier, the resident asked the landlord to compensate her for a percentage of her rent, council tax and energy costs. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. Financial damages are a legal matter, and the resident can obtain legal advice if she wishes to pursue her claim through the courts. Council tax is paid to the local authority, and so the resident would need to contact the local authority if she feels she is due an exemption.
  3. The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the property defects has negatively impacted on her household’s health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Handling of reported defects

  1. The Ombudsman provides a dispute resolution service. Our approach is framed by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It is not within our role or expertise to conduct independent technical assessments of suspected defects. It is important to note that the existence of the defect does not constitute a failing on the landlord’s part. In investigating this complaint, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the issues and take into account its obligations, policies, and best practice.
  2. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it provided the resident with a timeline of events that occurred in relation to her reports of defects in the property. However, throughout our investigation it appeared that the landlord had not supplied evidence to support numerous aspects of its narrative. Some of these examples have been highlighted within this section of the report. The level of evidence has made it difficult for this Service to make an assessment of these aspects of the case and is indicative of poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
  3. The landlord’s new home user guide states that following handover of newly built properties, they carry a DLP with the developer for 12 months. This means that during this period, the developer is obliged to return and repair a variety of faults in the property, should they occur. It states that the priority given to defects depends on the nature of the issue.
  4. As frequently seen in similar cases, landlords do not always have the power to investigate and resolve the defects in new build properties themselves, which can make relationships difficult to manage and cause frustration to the resident. However, during the DLP, we expect landlords to function as an intermediary, coordinating between the developer and the resident to ensure defects are investigated and remedied (if applicable) to a satisfactory standard within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. We have not had sight of the resident’s original report of the defect in the second-floor bedroom. This is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the issue. However, within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that the resident first reported it on 24 December 2018. The resident has not disputed this.
  6. No records have been provided that show when the landlord forwarded the reported defects to the developer, which is further record keeping failure. However, it is reasonable to assume that it did. This is because between March 2019 and April 2019, the developer informed the resident that to alleviate the temperature issues in the bedroom, it would replace the single convector radiators with double convectors and relocate the thermostat from the ground floor to the first floor. We have received no evidence that shows when this took place. The importance of retaining comprehensive records is again highlighted.
  7. In April 2019, the developer told the resident that it would also arrange a thermal testing survey to investigate reports of low temperatures on the second floor of the property. Both parties agreed that it would be more valuable and effective to undertake the survey in the colder months.
  8. Between January 2019 and January 2020, the resident principally liaised directly with the developer with regard to the defects in the property. It is therefore positive that the landlord requested an update from the developer on several occasions during this period. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm that she was satisfied with the progress of the works, especially when she copied it into an email she sent to her local MP on 3 January 2020.
  9. The findings of the thermal survey undertaken by an independent engineering consultant in November 2019 were shared with the developer on 24 January 2020. The evidence suggests that the landlord forwarded the report to the resident, which was appropriate. In summary, the report concluded that the temperatures in the second-floor bedroom did not meet the required standards, and further works were recommended to resolve the issue.
  10. On 22 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and developer. She said a specialist ventilation engineer (arranged by the developer) had attended her property that day and had informed her of their concerns that the ventilation unit was installed into the cupboard on the landing of the second floor. Specifically, they noted that the condensation pipe was fitted incorrectly which caused a build up of water which was “very dangerous”. The resident sent a second email and stated that she felt she was “fighting [the landlord’s] battles”. It is accepted that the developer responded to the resident’s concerns and arranged an appointment for 4 March 2020. However, we find it inappropriate that the landlord did not respond to the resident, nor did it provide evidence that it had discussed her concerns internally or with the developer. It also did not demonstrate that it took a suitably empathetic and supportive approach in response to the resident’s obvious frustration.
  11. On 15 July 2020, the landlord discussed internally that the recommended works to the affected properties on the development would commence on 28 July 2020. Allowances have been made for the 6-month delay in the commencement of the works due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the scope of works was considerable, as it included 13 properties. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident during this period to provide her with an update, which was unreasonable. We have also seen no records that show when the recommended works were undertaken to the resident’s property. This is a further record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the defects.
  12. On 19 August 2020, concerns were raised by the residents’ association (which included the resident) regarding the success of the recently completed works. The residents asked that a further independent survey be undertaken to ensure the works had satisfactorily resolved the issues with heat loss. Following this, the landlord appropriately informed the residents’ association that the developer had arranged for an independent consultant to monitor 4 properties within the development, to be satisfied that the remedial works to resolve the temperature concerns were successful. The monitoring was to take place during a cooler season. This was an appropriate response from the landlord and showed that it was successfully mediating between the parties.
  13. Within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new build properties, we found that landlords needed to be clearer with their residents as to how they will respond both during the defect period and once this has expired. It is therefore positive to see that the landlord arranged a meeting with the developer on 23 October 2020 to discuss its communication processes with the residents on the development. The evidence suggests that following this meeting, the residents were advised to contact the landlord directly about any issues moving forward. This was appropriate and showed a customer-orientated approach. However, given that the DLP for the resident’s property had ended in December 2019, we do find that the landlord should have informed the resident sooner.
  14. Thermal monitoring of the resident’s property (and other properties on the development) was undertaken by the same independent consultant in March 2021. The report findings were issued on 15 October 2021. The landlord shared the findings with the residents’ association on 24 November 2021. It said the report confirmed the properties that were monitored met the design criteria and the results indicated the homes reached the desired temperatures. It said that both the landlord and the developer considered matters resolved and any future repairs should be reported via its “customer portal”. We find that the landlord’s communication was fair and provided the resident with a clear explanation.
  15. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged the delays in arranging the thermal monitoring and the subsequent report being issued. It attributed the delays to further COVID-19 restrictions. While we understand it was the developer that arranged for the report, we would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to drive the matter forward to a resolution, such as actively chasing the developer for updates. The landlord has not shared full records of its communications with the developer. We find that it should have provided detailed records to evidence its actions, communications with all parties and decision making at this time. Without this information, this we cannot conclude that the landlord acted fairly or reasonably.
  16. Between January 2022 and July 2022, the evidence suggests that thermographic surveys and air permeability testing were discussed and arranged to be undertaken at other similar properties on the development. From the evidence supplied, it appears that there was an issue with the insulation in the roofs of the properties. The resident emailed the landlord and developer on 28 June 2022 and said she had heard that insulation work to a neighbouring property had been arranged for July. She asked if her property could be scheduled in for the repairs too. The works were undertaken in October 2022. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident in relation to the repairs, which is a further record keeping failure in its handling of the defects. However, it apologised to the resident in its stage 2 response for this failure and explained that this was due to a publicised cyber incident in July and August 2022, which resulted in correspondence not being sent. The Ombudsman appreciates the effect a cyber incident can have on an organisation.
  17. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said that during the roof line works, one of its own staff members identified a potential issue with missing cavity fire barriers in the walls and loft spaces in some of the properties. The evidence shows that the landlord was proactive in its handling of this matter and promptly arranged an independent survey. The report confirmed that no further works had been identified, and the landlord appropriately informed the resident of the findings.
  18. The landlord told the resident that she should contact her building warranty provider to satisfy herself that the property was safe. One of the key functions of the warranty is to help resolve disputes between developers and owners, if the developer has not put right any defect reported to it. Therefore, we find that this was an appropriate response from the landlord.
  19. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said that in November 2022 it had reimbursed the resident £271.82 for the additional costs she had incurred during the remedial works to her home. This included the additional electricity costs used by the contractors, replacement kitchen taps, and costs of cleaning when the works had been completed. This was a positive action from the landlord and showed that it was aiming to put things right for the resident. However, as we have seen no documentary evidence of this, it is a further record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the defects.
  20. On 22 March 2023, the landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation. It said the offer was in recognition of the additional costs she had incurred, including additional heating costs, distress and inconvenience, and the time she had spent following up the works. This was again a positive action from the landlord in making an offer prior to the resident raising a formal complaint. However, taking all facts into account, we find that the offer was low.
  21. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the policy does not cover repairs to new homes where the developer is responsible for rectifying the problem within the defect liability period. It was appropriate that the landlord then referred to our remedies guidance and the consumer code for house builders. This showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s compensation request seriously and aimed to put things right for her.
  22. Our remedies guidance states that an offer over £1,000 is appropriate in circumstances where there the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service, or where failures accumulated over a significant period of time. We therefore find that the landlord’s revised offer of £1,500 at stage 2 (not including £300 for heating costs) for the distress, inconvenience, time, trouble and enjoyment of the resident’s home was fair and reasonable.
  23. The resident told the landlord that she paid a total of £4,126.03 from December 2018 to November 2022 for her energy bills. When calculating its offer of compensation, the landlord appropriately considered the energy regulator’s average household consumption figures, and took into account that the resident did not report any issues between November 2021 and the summer of 2022. We therefore find that its offer of £300 for the resident’s additional heating costs was reasonable.
  24. It is also our view that the landlord’s response in relation to the resident’s request for reimbursement for council tax and rent was reasonable, based on its responsibilities.
  25. The impact that the handling of the property defects has had on the resident and her children is acknowledged, and we recognise that the resident was in this situation through no fault of her own. Overall, there were several service failures by the landlord owing to poor communication and delays with chasing the developer. There were also numerous record keeping issues identified within the report, but as there is no evidence that this had a corresponding impact on the resident, it does not warrant an adverse finding.
  26. Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, we find that the landlord’s offer of compensation was timely and sufficient to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At the time of the complaint, stage 1 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints were also to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. If an extension was required at either stage of the complaints process, the landlord’s policy stated that this would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  2. It was appropriate that, on 21 April 2023, the landlord informed the resident how to make a complaint or contact this Service if she was dissatisfied with its offer of compensation. This was in line with the accessibility and awareness principles outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’). We have seen no documentary evidence that the resident raised a complaint directly with the landlord at this time.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s subsequent stage 1 complaint the same day it received instruction from us to open a complaint (4 July 2023). This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
  4. Within the landlord’s acknowledgement email, it informed the resident it had 10 working days to provide her with a formal response, and she would receive this by 24 July 2023. We find the landlord’s communication confusing in this instance, as 10 working days would have been 18 July 2023. The importance of effective communication and management of expectations during the complaints process is highlighted.
  5. We find that the landlord appropriately contacted the resident on 11 and 12 July 2023 to discuss her complaint.
  6. On 21 July 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it needed to extend the complaint timescales and would aim to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 4 August 2023. We find this unreasonable, because this would have been a response time of 23 working days. This was at odds with its complaints policy, which only allowed for a 10-working day extension. In mitigation, it is accepted that the Code at the time of the complaint stated that if an extension beyond 20 working days was required, it should be agreed by both parties.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 3 August 2023. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 4 August 2023 to express her dissatisfaction that she had not received a response from the landlord as it had previously agreed. The landlord responded to the resident the next working day (7 August 2023). It said it “wasn’t sure if the response was posted or emailed to [her]” and attached a copy of the letter. Given that most of the landlord’s communication with the resident had been via email, it would have been appropriate for it to send her a copy of the stage 1 response using the same method of communication. As we have seen no documentary evidence that the landlord issued its response prior to 7 August 2023, we find that it acted unreasonably.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 August 2023, and the landlord acknowledged her request the same day. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  9. On 22 August 2023, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint handler appropriately emailed the resident to introduce themselves and asked her if she was available to discuss the complaint further via email or telephone. The resident responded the same day and asked the landlord to confirm if she “really needed to go through [the complaint] again”. While we accept that the resident did not confirm her preferred method of communication, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her via any method. We find that the landlord’s approach in this instance showed a lack of customer focus. In the circumstances, it would have been helpful for it to respond confirming its understanding of the complaint and give the resident the opportunity to raise any further points.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. This was 22 working days from the date it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was slightly outside of the landlord’s target timescales (20 days). We accept that the substantive issues had been resolved, so the impact of any minor delay was minimal. Nevertheless, as the landlord stated within its stage 2 response that it had agreed an extension with the resident, we requested further documentary evidence to support its claims. The landlord informed us in March 2025 that an extension was not agreed with the resident and its response was “late”. We therefore find that it acted inappropriately by providing incorrect statements within its complaint response.
  11. Overall, as the landlord failed to identify and apologise in its final response for its complaint handling failings, or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. It is for this reason that we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  12. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the failings identified. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of defects in the new build property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of her complaint. This must be paid directly to her.

Recommendations

  1. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that the resident receives the £1,800 that the landlord previously offered at stages 1 and 2 (£1,200 plus £600) in relation to the reported defects. This is in addition to the £100 ordered above. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should therefore pay this directly to the resident and provide evidence to this Service it has made the payment.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord:
    1. Familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices and aid service delivery.
    2. Arranges training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution e-learning. This should be done with the aim of ensuring that timescales outlined within the Code are adhered to.