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

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202126174)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126174

Bromford Housing Group Limited

15 May 2023


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs/snagging issues at the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident became a shared owner of the property in the summer of 2018. The property was a new home, a two-bedroom semi-detached house and the resident was its first occupant. The resident lives alone, but her father has assisted throughout with providing access and liaising with the landlord and developer.
  2. The resident reported issues relating to the property upon taking up occupation, including in relation to the electric shower, the mains electrics and cable fittings. The landlord liaised with the property developer on the resident’s behalf, though this did not result in a resolution for the resident who stated an intention to complain about the developer (February 2019). The landlord agreed to contact the developer to ask them to contact the resident’s father. The file did not show that a complaint was ever formally logged by the landlord.
  3. An end of defects inspection took place in July 2019, following which an extensive list of snagging/defect issues appear to have been identified (August 2019. The landlord and develop continued to liaise over outstanding works, though there was disagreement as to what works the developer was prepared to accept responsibility.
  4. On 6 September 2019 the resident’s father complained about the outstanding works and service received from the landlord and developer. This was raised as a formal complaint by the landlord. On 26 November 2020 this complaint was closed by the landlord following a report from its 2nd contractor that it had been unable to obtain access to the property to carry out works. The landlord said it would monitor works completion and the resident should liaise directly with the 2nd contractor. The resident’s father objected to the closure of the complaint, but it remained closed.
  5. On 16 September 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint regarding the outstanding defects. This was treated as a Stage 1 complaint. The landlord and resident met on 24 September to discuss the complaint. In the Stage 1 complaint response dated 7 October 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay and explained that it was hard to chase works following the developer’s merger with another company. The landlord explained that it subsequently instructed its own contractors, but they had to pull out due to the pandemic, and that it then instructed the 2nd contractors, who encountered challenges in obtaining materials, which led to further delays. The landlord concluded by confirming that the complaint would not be closed until outstanding works to the window frame and render work were completed.
  6. On 8 October 2021, during a home visit the resident stated she wished to escalate her complaint. The resident had expected a Quality Construction Manager/specialist to attend the home visit and instead a tenancy management officer attended. The meeting was about the paint colour required for the exterior walls. The resident explained that as the exterior walls were not painted, but the colour mixed into the render, painting would be required to all walls, not just two sides, and it was not possible for the tenancy management officer to advise on this.
  7. On 11 January 2022 the landlord confirmed it would investigate the complaint at Stage 2, which would address service issues. The landlord informed the resident and her father that their ongoing concerns with the works would need to be referred to the National House Building Council (NHBC) to provide an independent view of the defects and works required to make good. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, recognising that there had been delays, a lack of updates, reactive updates and many parties involved so it was not clear who the resident should liaise with. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience of tradesmen arriving unannounced, explaining it was not uncommon where they were on site to try to get a prompt resolution. The landlord apologised for the standard of works and damage, explaining it had instructed its own contractors where the resident was dissatisfied to try to resolve these, and it hoped the resident would reach satisfaction through NHBC. The landlord offered £500 in resolution. The landlord set out the lessons that it had learnt from the process and changes that it had implemented to avoid this situation in the future.
  8. The resident’s father explained to the Ombudsman that the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident complains that the landlord has not addressed its handling of repairs and maintenance issues and there are outstanding snagging issues: the joins in the kitchen worktop are not flat, there is damage to the laminate, to a PvC window and to the front and rear door frames. The resident’s father stated that £500 is insufficient compensation, considering the time spent by the resident’s father and his 30–mile round trip to provide access.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs and snagging issues

  1. The agreed list of works, or any record of the end of defects inspection, is not among the documents provided to the Ombudsman. An undated file note states that the dated of the end of snagging/defects period was 9 July 2019. The email correspondence between the landlord and the developer in late August and early September 2019 imply that the developer agreed to complete the 25 works listed as outstanding by the resident’s father, after initially stating that not all had been agreed. During a telephone call the landlord informed the resident’s father that the contractors were “within their 60 days” to contact him to arrange the works, the resident’s father said that they had until 7 October 2019.
  2. It appears that the responsibility for completion of the repairs and snagging issues lay with the developer and not the landlord. During the first year, the resident and her father seem to have mainly dealt with the developer’s contractors directly as there is little record of contact between the landlord and the resident about the snagging works.
  3. In the summer of 2019 the landlord became involved at the resident’s father’s request, and from 7 November 2019 the landlord took on the role to effectively communicate between the parties to ensure that the works were completed within a reasonable timeframe. The file shows that by that time the relationship between the resident’s father and the contractors and developer was breaking down. The father complained of feeling very frustrated, and contractors expressed concerns to the landlord about the father’s behaviour towards them.
  4. In December 2019 the developer informed the landlord that the works were completed. The landlord checked with the resident and her father. The resident’s father disagreed and listed outstanding snagging works and no attendance since 8 November. In January 2020 the developer informed the landlord that it disputed the outstanding works list.
  5. The landlord’s notes indicate that it encountered problems getting responses from the developer, and so on 20 March 2020 suggested to the resident that either the resident, or the landlord arrange a contractor with the landlord covering the cost. The resident’s father confirmed that he preferred the landlord to arrange the works.
  6. In mid-May 2020 the landlord next contacted the resident and her father to inform them that it was still trying to resolve the matter and had decided the landlord’s contractors would complete the remainder of the works instead of the developer’s contractors. The landlord explained that its contractors would need to inspect first, but due to the pandemic contractors were only attending for emergencies, so it would be in touch when it got the go ahead to return to normal service. Further discussion took place about a possible visit in June 2020, but this was still pending further internal landlord risk assessments. 
  7. Notes indicate that due to the pandemic works and home visits were on hold until at least June 2020. The landlord’s 1st contractor did not attend until approximately September 2020, when they inspected to take measurements. The landlord then encountered difficulty obtaining information from the developers about the materials used, which they had to replicate, following a merger between the developer and another organisation.
  8. Unfortunately, in early November 2020 the landlord’s 1st contractors pulled out and so the landlord instructed the 2nd contractors instead. It was following the instruction of the 2nd contractors that the initial formal complaint was closed (as mentioned at paragraph 6 above), as they had reported that they had been unable to gain access or reach the resident. However, the landlord confirmed the 2nd contractors would still complete the outstanding works.
  9. On 17 December 2020 the landlord confirmed that appointments should be arranged directly between the 2nd contractor and the resident/her father, with the landlord monitoring works. A further delay followed due to awaiting parts, and some works then took place in February 2021. The next records in January 2021 indicate that the resident was chasing the completion of the works. The 2nd contractors reported that they were struggling to locate the stock needed to carry out internal works.
  10. The works eventually started in mid–February 2021. The notes show that although the resident’s father approved some works initially, he later noticed and reported damage and faults with the work. The 2nd contractor denied this but agreed to resolve the issues. Records show that in September 2021 works were outstanding, they were chased and then took place in mid-September 2021. The 2nd contractor expressed concerns about the resident’s father’s behaviour and on 24 September 2021, the landlord instructed a 3rd contractor, as the 2nd contractor no longer wished to complete any works at the property. This is contrary to the explanation in the Stage 1 response, which was that the 3rd contractor was appointed following the resident’s criticism of the 2nd contractor’s work.
  11. The landlord initially kept track of works, but then there was no action between April and late mid-June 2021, when it only chased the 2nd contractor following a text from the resident asking when works would be finished. The landlord chased the works regularly after then, until late September 2021 when a 3rd contractor was instructed. There is no indication of further action, until January 2022 when the landlord referred the resident to the NHBC.
  12. There were some difficulties that were outside of the landlord’s control, such as the developer’s actions, delays because of the pandemic and delays in obtaining materials. However, despite nominally taking control of the situation in November 2019, the landlord’s handling of the repairs and snagging issues was inadequate.
  13. The landlord’s final response noted that the resident had taken her ongoing dissatisfaction about the quality of works in relation to defects to the NHBC, with the focus of the complaints process therefore restricted to the ‘service issues experienced’. The landlord also confirmed that it had ‘on several occasions’ instructed its own contractors in an ‘attempt to resolve the matter’ but that this had not led to a successful resolution. The landlord’s approach here presents as reasonable in the circumstances as the landlord had taken steps to provide a resolution and, having identified that the resident remained dissatisfied following these actions, it accepted that the NHBC would provide an independent and qualified conclusion as to the defect issues.
  14. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged that there had been significant distress and inconvenience for the resident. It accepted there were communication failures between it and the developer, together with communication issues with contractors instructed to carry out works and contractors turning up unannounced. It identified areas of improvement over how it would handle snagging/defects issues in future. It also apologised and offered compensation of £500 to reflect the resident’s overall experience, which it agreed was not of a sufficient standard.
  15. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s offer of remedy is considered to have provided the resident with reasonable redress for the failures identified. The ongoing property condition issues that relate to the snagging/defects at the start of occupation are under consideration by an appropriate body. The service failures identified no doubt contributed to what was clearly a frustrating and disappointing time for the resident in her new home. As such, a payment of compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases that involve multiple service failures over a protracted period was reasonable. It was also appropriate, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, for the landlord to have apologised and identified learning from the case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy provides that a Stage 1 complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response provided within 10 working days of receipt unless it is complex, in which case the response may be provided up to 10 working days after.
  2. It appears likely that a complaint was not opened regarding the resident’s father’s initial mention of a complaint in February 2019 as it only related to the developer, who the landlord contacted that same day.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s father’s complaint of 6 September 2019 within the relevant timescale. An internal landlord email records that the resident’s father wanted all the outstanding works completed before the complaint is closed. The next reference to this complaint is a letter dated 25 November 2020, it is not clear whether this is due to records not having been provided, or if there was simply no further progress with the complaint during this period. On 25 November the landlord informed the resident it had closed the complaint as the 2nd contractor contracted by the landlord had been unable to gain access to carry out works. In an email dated 17 December 2020 the resident’s father strongly opposed the closure of the complaint. There is, however, no indication that the decision was revisited.
  4. On 16 September 2021 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. This was recorded as a Stage 1 complaint. It appears that the resident sought to escalate as she believed that her previous complaint remained open. There is no record on the file of any acknowledgment of this Stage 1 complaint, however, the response provided on 7 October 2021 referred to a meeting between the landlord, the resident, and her father on 24 September 2021, 6 working days after the complaint was recorded.
  5. The landlord must have acknowledged the Stage 1 complaint within 5 working days as a meeting was arranged to discuss it on the 6th working day. The response was provided 15 working days after the complaint was made, which the Ombudsman accepts was permitted under the Policy as the complaint was likely ‘complex’ due to the lengthy period that it spans.
  6. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that a Stage 2 complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response provided within 20 working days, with a maximum extension of a further 10 working days.
  7. The resident informed the landlord that she wished to escalate the complaint on 8 October 2021. However, the landlord did not confirm it would investigate at Stage 2 until 11 January 2022, 62 working days later. There is no explanation for why the escalation was not acknowledged for over three months. The Stage 2 reply was provided on 4 February 2022, 18 working days after acknowledgement. Although the substantive response was provided within the required timescale, that deadline would have been three months earlier if the landlord had acknowledged the complaint in accordance with its Policy.
  8. The Stage 2 complaint provides a clear explanation for the failures and delay and apologises. The reply also sets out several changes in processes that the landlord has implemented because of this experience.
  9. The significant delay and closure of the 2019 complaint, and the delay in acknowledging the Stage 2 escalation, warrant a finding of maladministration. The closure of the complaint despite the resident’s father’s protests meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to clarify its position through its internal complaints process and meant that the resident was unable to progress to the Ombudsman. It likely contributed to the overall delay and deterioration in the landlord and resident relationship.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b)of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs and snagging issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £700 in compensation. This includes the £500 already offered during the complaints process (if not already paid), plus a further £200 in relation to the additional service failures identified in relation to its complaints handling.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order to this Service within four weeks of this report.