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

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202316706)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316706

Bromford Housing Group Limited

26 March 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:
    1. Flooding in the resident’s garden.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a new build house with a garden. The resident has a daughter with a disability, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. In April 2022, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s back garden following a report from the resident that the garden was flooding when it rained.
  3. On 15 May 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She stated she requested a copy of the landlord’s survey inspection report of her garden. However, she stated she had still not received a copy of this. The resident explained as she was renting the property as a tenant, she would expect the landlord to resolve the issue with the garden.
  4. The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2023. It explained it had met with its repairs manager to discuss the previous garden inspection which was carried out. The landlord stated its repairs manager had said the issues with the garden were aesthetic and outside its policy. Therefore, it confirmed it would not carry out any work to the garden. However, it explained if the resident required an occupational therapy assessment to look at any difficulties with using the garden due to medical issues, it could request this for her.
  5. The landlord has stated the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process on 6 June 2023. The resident asked again for a copy of the surveyor’s inspection report, and she stated the turf across the whole garden was affected.
  6. On 22 June 2023, the resident sent a further email asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She explained the issue with the garden had been an ongoing problem since she moved into the property. She stated this was due to poor drainage with no soak away, which resulted in the water sitting in one place and leaving the ground spongy and unusable. The resident explained other neighbouring properties had experienced the same issues with their gardens.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 July 2023. It explained it had reviewed the photographs of the garden and stated that the garden could be used, although it did not look visually pleasing. The landlord stated this is common in new–build properties and can take some work to improve the garden, which would be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord also explained it attempted to obtain a copy of the previous surveyor’s report. However, it had not been saved on its systems where it would normally expect. It stated it could not complete any further works or investigations without an occupational therapy assessment, as recommended. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for delays in providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to complete the necessary works to the garden to resolve the flooding issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns that there have been issues with flooding in her garden since she moved into the property in January 2020. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the length of time the issue has been ongoing for. We acknowledge it is a longstanding issue which has caused difficulties for her and her family. However, there is no evidence of her raising a formal complaint to the landlord until May 2023. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will not consider any specific events approximately more than 12 months prior to when the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord in May 2023.This is because paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s property is a new build house, and she moved into the property in January 2020. New-build properties have a ‘defect period’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing defects which would have been present when the property was built. This period usually lasts for 12-24 months after the date the property was handed over to the landlord. The landlord would be responsible for raising repair issues with the original developer of the property during this period. After a defect period has finished, the landlord would usually deal with defects, or they would be dealt with under the building’s warranty.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, excluding glazing.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy explains it will resolve any new build defects by applying the defect liability development contract. The policy states, in most instances, this will be 6 or 12 months from the practical completion of the scheme. It also states the repair would be passed to the relevant contractor and the development team would monitor and manage the repair.
  4. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy explains that the landlord will respond to an immediate repair within 2 hours and an emergency repair on the same day or the next day, depending on the repair issue. It also states for an appointed and unappointed repair; it will arrange an appointment based on availability of resources and risk.

Flooding in the resident’s garden

  1. In April 2022, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the resident’s back garden, in response to a report from the resident that the garden was flooding when it rained. The landlord acted appropriately by completing an inspection of the garden. However, the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the surveyor’s report. In addition, the resident asked the landlord for a copy of the surveyor’s report on multiple occasions, and it told her it could not locate the report on its systems.
  2. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of repairs and inspection reports. 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. The landlord has failed to maintain adequate records in this instance by not being able to locate the surveyor’s report.
  3. The landlord has not provided records of any communication with the resident after the surveyor’s inspection until the resident submitted her complaint in May 2023. She explained that the landlord’s surveyor previously inspected her garden, and they stated it was in an unreasonable condition for the resident to fix. She said the issue with the garden was due to poor workmanship.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2023. It stated its repairs manager had said the issues with the garden were aesthetic and outside its policy. Therefore, it confirmed it would not carry out any work to the garden. However, it explained if the resident required an occupational therapy assessment, it could request this for her. The landlord’s response that it would not complete any works to the garden was unreasonable. At the time the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the resident had been experiencing an issue with her garden flooding when it rained for over a year. In addition, the landlord could not locate a copy of the surveyor’s report. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete a further inspection of the garden at this point to assess whether it needed to carry out any repair works to make the garden safe and useable. The landlord should also have ensured that the inspection was carried out shortly after it had rained as the resident said the flooding occurred when it rained.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offered to review its position regarding the garden if the resident obtained an occupational therapy assessment. It would be appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to occupational therapy if she required adaptations to her property due to the disabilities of members of her household. However, the landlord should have carried out an inspection of the garden without the resident needing to get an occupational therapy assessment to ensure it was suitable for general use and investigate the reports of flooding. It is reasonable to conclude that the garden would have been unusable when it was flooded. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been a very difficult time for the resident and her children not to have a usable garden.
  6. The landlord’s operative eventually attended the resident’s property on 25 March 2024 to inspect the garden. This was 10 months after the resident had complained about the ongoing issue and nearly 2 years after the previous inspection in April 2022. The inspection should have been carried out much sooner. During the inspection. the operative identified drainage issues with the garden. Shortly after the visit, the landlord emailed the developer who built the property about the garden issues. It explained that there was no drainage in the back garden and, when it rained, water was entering the resident’s property through the back door and damaging her laminate flooring. The landlord asked the developer if it could investigate the issue. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the developer about the issue to check if the developer was responsible for resolving this in line with its responsibilities to resolve defects. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have contacted the developer when it was first made aware of the issue with the garden.
  7. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the response from the developer. However, the landlord’s note from 16 April 2024 stated that the house was over 2 years old and outside the defect period. In addition, the landlord’s repair records from the same day state that the resident’s doors and floors were damaged from her garden leaking and required an inspection. From reviewing the information the landlord has provided, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out any further inspections of the garden or completed any repairs. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in February 2025 to confirm if any further inspections were carried out. However, the landlord stated it could not provide the requested information.
  8. It is a concern that the landlord could not provide the Ombudsman with the information we requested, including details about any further inspections carried out.
  9. On 28 February 2025, the resident emailed us and confirmed that the landlord had completed no repairs, and the garden was still flooding when it rained. She also explained that water was coming through her back door and impacting her laminate flooring. The resident also provided us with a copy of messages between her and the landlord. The landlord explained in one message that as the resident’s property had been built since 2019, it was outside the developer’s defects period. It stated any issues with the garden would not be dealt with by its repairs team. The issue with the garden flooding has been outstanding for nearly 3 years from when the landlord initially inspected it in April 2022. This resulted in the resident and her family, including her daughter, with a disability being unable to use the garden. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of flooding in the resident’s garden.
  10. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £750 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to repair the garden. The amount of compensation awarded, complies with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £600 to £1000 where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident.
  11. In addition, the landlord is ordered to arrange for an independent surveyor to inspect the resident’s garden and recommend the required works to resolve the issue with the garden flooding when it rains. The landlord should complete the repairs recommended by the surveyor. If it is unable to complete any repairs, it should explain why to the resident and pursue alternative measures to make the garden useable and free from significant flooding.
  12. As noted above, water from the flooding of the resident’s garden entered her property and damaged her laminate flooring. The resident reported this to the landlord. However, the landlord failed to inspect the flooring. The resident has told the Ombudsman the damaged flooring was in her living room and hallway. She also confirmed that she paid for the laminate flooring to be installed. Considering the resident’s assertion that damage to laminate flooring was caused by the ongoing flooding in the garden, which still requires repair, the landlord is ordered to assess the resident’s damaged flooring as a claim internally or refer a claim to its liability insurer (if it has one). If the landlord assesses the claim internally and the resident is dissatisfied with its decision regarding the claim, she may be able to raise a new complaint about this to the landlord.

 

 

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code. In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy states the landlord will acknowledge a stage 1 and 2 complaint within 5 working days.
  2. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2023. The response was approximately 1 working day late and not in line with the 10 working day timescales referenced in the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy. However, the delay was not excessive.
  3. On 6 June 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation request, which was logged on 27 June 2023. The acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request was outside the 5 working days timescale referenced in the landlord’s complaint policy.                
  4. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 complaint response that there was a delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response and acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay and inconvenience caused. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, referenced above which suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord, but the errors may have been of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding its complaint handling.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flooding in the resident’s garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its handling of the flooding in her garden. The apology should come from a senior member of staff at director level or above within the landlord’s organisation.
    2. Pay the resident £750 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the flooding in her garden.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm its decision on the claim for the resident’s damaged laminate flooring, including the reasons for its decision. Or provide its liability insurer’s details so the resident can make a liability claim.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord is ordered to arrange for an independent surveyor to inspect the resident’s garden. The inspection should take place within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. Following the inspection, the landlord should complete the garden repairs recommended by the surveyor. The garden repairs should be completed within 8 weeks from the date of the inspection. The landlord must inform the service once the garden repairs have been completed. If the landlord is unable to complete any repairs recommended by the surveyor, it should explain why to the resident and the Ombudsman and pursue alternative measures to make the garden useable and free from significant flooding.
  4. The landlord is ordered to review the resident’s case and identify any areas for improvement with a focus on the delays in completing the repairs to the garden. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this service and the resident.
  5. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £50 compensation made to her if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.