Bromford Housing Group Limited (202128099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128099

Bromford Housing Group Limited

19 September 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

The complaint is about the amount of compensation offered to the resident associated with the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs, including damp and mould, a leaking sink and garden maintenance.
2. The resident’s request for wardrobes and a garden shed.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident and landlord have shared ownership of the property.
The complaint is between the resident and the landlord, but also involves contractors acting on behalf of the landlord and the developer responsible for the construction of the property.
The resident reported multiple repairs to the landlord between July and September 2021 and felt the completion of the property had been “rushed”. The requested repairs included:
1. Issues with the front and back door.
2. Damp and mould.
3. A leaking sink.
4. The rear garden turf had died and became “patchy”.
5. An outdoor light was not working.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to complete the repairs. The contractor made several unannounced visits to the resident’s property to fix the issues between July and September 2021. The resident reported the leak to the landlord in July, August, and September 2021, as it had worsened and began to cause “cupboards to rot”. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates throughout this period.
The resident also told the landlord that the plans shown to them prior to moving into the property had included wardrobes, but these were not provided. The resident said that a neighbour’s property had included wardrobes and they felt they were being treated unfairly because of this. The resident said that some properties had also been “gifted” a garden shed but others had not, which they said did not fit within the landlord’s policy of “treating customers fairly”.
The resident made a subsequent complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2021. The complaint outlined the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, their request for wardrobes and a garden shed, poor communication and the need to chase the landlord for updates, and contractors having turned up at the property unannounced. The resident requested a compensation amount of £2,000 for the time spent chasing the landlord, the inconvenience of unannounced visits, the lack of communication and the missing shed and wardrobe.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 September 2021 and issued a stage one complaint response on 22 September 2021. The response acknowledged the resident’s complaint points and said:
1. The front door had been repaired within 24 hours of being reported and non-urgent repairs “do not have a set response time”.
2. While the issue with the grass was not categorised as a “defect”, the landlord had arranged for new grass as a gesture of goodwill.
3. The landlord was not responsible for the developer’s decision to “gift” garden sheds to some residents and the resident had proceeded with the purchase of the property “without built-in wardrobes”. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction when they became aware that some properties had wardrobes installed.
4. The landlord apologised for confusion surrounding the treatment of damp in the property, as a member of staff had removed heaters being used for “drying out” and said they were not needed. The landlord had also given feedback to the appropriate department.
5. The contractor/developer did not have the correct contact details for the resident and had been unable to get in touch regarding the reported damp and mould.
6. The resident had been provided with two locks for a gate at the property, after they had reported only having one.
7. The landlord had given feedback to the developer regarding unannounced visits to the resident’s property and it was “best practice” to call prior to attending.
8. The landlord was satisfied it had acted appropriately when dealing with the resident’s reports of defects at the property but acknowledged it had caused some inconvenience and offered £100 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. They contacted the landlord on 29 September 2021 and said they felt they had been treated unfairly when compared to other residents. The resident referred to having to chase the landlord for updates, not knowing what was happening with the damp and mould, delays in complaint handling and continued unannounced visits. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation and said they did not understand why unannounced appointments were not compensated the same as missed appointments, at £25 per missed appointment.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 17 November 2021. The response included an apology for:
1. Complaint handling, including the timescales and that the resident had to chase a response.
2. Continued unannounced visits to the resident’s property.
3. Incorrect plans which had been shared with the resident, which had included built-in wardrobes.
4. Having incorrect contact details for the resident, which had delayed response times when dealing with the reported damp and mould.
5. Response times when dealing with the repair of a light and fan, and miscommunication regarding other repairs.
6. Not sharing details of “snags” (defects or required repairs) prior to the resident moving into the property.
The landlord also said that the response to the door issue had been “very prompt”, none of the available information suggested the leak should be treated as “urgent”. The landlord said that it would not comment on other residents and their properties, but “fairness did not necessarily mean treating all residents the same”. This was in reference to the garden shed and built-in wardrobes. The landlord also mentioned “separate lines of communication” with the contractor and developer, which had contributed to miscommunication and delays. It offered an additional £150 compensation to the resident, bringing the total to £250.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this service. They said:
1. The leak had been looked at by the landlord “5 times” when it should have been fixed on the first occasion.
2. They suffered from anxiety which was triggered when contractors attended unannounced.
3. They had been treated unfairly by the landlord and it should have shared details of “snags” prior to the resident moving in.
4. The offer of compensation was unfair and “insulting” and they had been failed by the service the landlord had provided.
The resident reaffirmed the compensation amount of £2,000, which they had requested from the landlord during the complaint process.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord’s repair policy describes the process of reporting a repair and the timescales for responding. The repair policy also categorises repairs as “emergency” or “appointable”, and describes the categories as:
1. “Emergency – a defect which may lead to injury or property damage if left. We [the landlord] will attend and make safe only. Some emergencies will require a 2 hour response and some a 24 hour response depending upon the repair. The customer will be advised.”
2. “Appointable – any defect which does not fall into the emergency repairs categories. They will be completed as required by the customer and appropriate to the works.”
The Ombudsman has considered whether the omission of a specific timescale for all non-emergency repairs is fair to residents. Industry best practice suggests a response time of 28 days for non-emergency responsive repairs and, while the landlord demonstrated prompt action following some of the resident’s reported repairs, it should include a similar quantifiable timescale in the policy. The inclusion of a timescale for the “appointable” repairs will provide residents and stakeholders with a means to measure the landlord’s performance and manage resident expectations. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation for the landlord to review its repair policy.
Without the inclusion of a specific timescale, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s response times were fair and reasonable when dealing with the resident’s reported repairs. The landlord has stated that most repairs requested by the resident were responded to promptly, some within 24 or 48 hours. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to put things right for the resident and the repairs were responded to within a reasonable period. However, the Ombudsman has identified that the landlord’s response to a leak at the resident’s property fell short of being reasonable.
The repair log shows the resident reported a leak on multiple separate occasions between July and September 2021, which the resident said contractors attempted to fix “5 times”. Communication between the landlord and contractor shows it was aware the leak had “worsened” and began to cause damp and mould, and cupboards to “rot”. The repair log provided by the landlord does not explain what actions were taken after the resident’s reports of a leak. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine what, if any, action was taken during or after each attempt to repair the leak. The Ombudsman understands a landlord can take more than one attempt to repair a leak, as it can be difficult to trace the source of the leak and there can be more than one source in some cases. However, the landlord should also consider whether alternative action is appropriate – such as replacing a part or unit – when repeated repairs have been attempted but have not permanently resolved the issue. The landlord’s failure to repair the leak sooner meant the resident was living with the issue for around 3 months, likely contributing to the damp and mould the landlord had identified in the property. The reason the landlord gave for the delays, that appointable repairs “did not have a set response time”, was also unfair to the resident and demonstrated a failure to provide a reasonable level of service. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined the landlord failed to appropriately handle the resident’s reports of a leak at their property, and it must act to put things right, as set out below.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has acknowledged an error which adversely affected the resident. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord identified delays and addressed them in its responses to the resident. However, the solution it offered fell short of being proportionate to the continued failure to repair the leak. Therefore, this service has determined the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation in addition to the compensation it offered through its complaints process.

Unannounced appointments

The tenancy agreement between the resident and landlord includes a clause which outlines the landlord’s right of inspection and right of repair. The tenancy clause states the resident is to “permit the landlord and its employees or agents at reasonable times to enter the premises and examine their condition and also to take a schedule of fixtures and fittings in the premises.” The tenancy agreement also includes a clause which permits the landlord entry to the property at “all reasonable times during the term on notice”. This meant it would have been reasonable for the landlord to request access to the property to assess the repairs which the resident had reported, providing it was at an appropriate time and prior notice had been given to the resident. The landlord also confirmed to the resident that it was “best practice” for contractors and/or the developer to contact residents prior to visiting their property.
The landlord said it requested that the contractor and developer made sure the resident was given prior notice of any planned visits to the property. This was because of the continued failure to provide notice and the impact unannounced visits were having on the resident. However, the resident continued to receive unannounced visits throughout the period when repairs remained outstanding. The landlord said this was because of the “number of contractors involved in the site construction”, and that it was “not uncommon” for contractors to attend properties whenever they are available and know a repair is outstanding.
While the landlord has said that visits were made to achieve a “prompt resolution”, it was still required to provide the resident with reasonable notice. The Ombudsman would understand if circumstances constituted an emergency under the tenancy agreement and the landlord attended without notice, but it is clear from the repair policy that in this case the repairs were not an emergency which would require access without notice. Therefore, the landlord, contractor and/or developer was not entitled to attend the property without reasonable notice. The landlord failed to give the resident notice of the visits. As the resident had specifically raised a complaint about this issue with the landlord, which was a live complaint at the time of some of the visits, this demonstrated continued service failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s failure to give reasonable notice prior to attending the property meant the resident continued to be impacted by unannounced visits. This is likely to have caused disruption and inconvenience for the resident, who made it clear to the landlord how this was affecting them. Therefore, this service has determined an offer of £200 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the landlord’s failure to follow the relevant tenancy agreement clauses and what it said was “best practice”. This order of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

Communication with the resident

The landlord has a responsibility to have open communication with residents, particularly when there are delays with outstanding repairs. If the landlord uses a contractor to complete repairs, it should act as a representative for the resident and communicate on their behalf. The landlord should also ensure any relevant updates or communication from the contractor are promptly provided to the resident. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to manage its relationships with its contractors to ensure that they have minimal negative impact on a resident.
The landlord said that “separate lines of communication” caused miscommunication between the landlord, contractor, and developer. The landlord said this had also caused repair delays and meant some repairs were not identified as “completed”. While the Ombudsman acknowledges miscommunication can sometimes happen, this should not have delayed the resident’s repair or caused multiple unannounced visits for an already completed repair.
The landlord has also said that the contractor had continued to attempt to contact the resident regarding repairs, but it had an incorrect telephone number for them. The landlord and, indirectly, the contractor had access to the resident’s address and potentially their email address. This meant the landlord and/or contractor could have attempted a different method of contact (letter or email) when it was unable to reach the resident via telephone. This failure to attempt an alternative method of communication meant the resident experienced continued delays and had to invest time and effort to request updates from the landlord, demonstrating service failure.
The Ombudsman has acknowledged the resident’s concern regarding the landlord’s failure to communicate regarding known “snags” (defects/required repairs) at the property. The landlord responded to this in its stage two complaint response by apologising and said it should have shared the report before the resident had moved into the property. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation for the landlord to consider its process of sharing this sort of information with residents prior to moving into a property to prevent similar issues occurring in future. In this instance, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord addressed the resident’s concern and provided an appropriate apology.
The landlord and contractor’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident meant they spent time and effort to find out the status of repairs and received unannounced visits for already completed repairs. Therefore, this service has determined an offer of £100 compensation to be fair and proportionate to the poor communication the resident received from the landlord and contractor. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as reference above.

The resident’s request for wardrobes and a garden shed

The resident said that plans shared with them prior to moving into the property had included built-in wardrobes. The landlord said that these plans were adjusted, excluding the wardrobes, but the resident still decided to continue with moving into the property. However, the resident had been informed that a neighbour had wardrobes included with their property and the resident said this demonstrated unfair treatment by the landlord.
While the Ombudsman understands the resident feels they were treated unfairly by the landlord, the resident agreed to proceed with moving into the property without the inclusion of wardrobes. Therefore, the resident was not entitled to wardrobes after they had agreed to move into the property. The Ombudsman has also determined that the landlord’s decision to decline to comment on the resident’s neighbours and their properties was reasonable, as this would have breached data protection. However, the landlord could have given a general explanation about why some properties may have fitted wardrobes but others did not without compromising confidentiality.
The offer of £100 “towards the cost of wardrobes” demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to go above and beyond its strict obligations to compensate the resident for the error in the plans it initially shared. The Ombudsman has acknowledged a failure to share the correct plans with the resident but is satisfied the landlord provided a fair and reasonable solution to this part of the resident’s complaint.
The decision to “gift” some residents with a garden shed was a decision made by the developer, and not the landlord. The landlord did not tell the resident at any point that they would receive a garden shed; therefore, the resident was not entitled to one. While the resident felt unfairly treated by the decision, the landlord gave a clear explanation of what had happened and cannot be held accountable for a decision made by the developer. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined no further action is required regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy details how residents can make a complaint and the timescales for a response. The policy sets out the landlord’s two-stage approach, with the timescales as follows:
1. Stage one complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response will be issued within 10 working days.
2. Stage two complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response will be issued within 20 working days.
The resident made their complaint on 1 September 2021 and was acknowledged 8 working days later, on 13 September 2021. The stage one complaint response was issued 16 working days after the initial complaint was made. The stage two complaint response was issued 36 working days after the resident’s request to escalate their complaint, after stage one. Therefore the landlord did not adhere to the timescales in its complaints policy and its responses were issued late at both stages of the process.
The Ombudsman has considered the impact and detriment the complaint handling delays had on the resident and the complaint overall, and whether the landlord took appropriate action to put things right. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged complaint handling delays and provided an apology for the resident’s experience. The Ombudsman has found the delays to have not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but did mean it took longer for matters to be resolved – satisfactorily for the resident or otherwise. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined that while the landlord failed in providing an appropriate level of service for the resident, it acknowledged those delays and provided an apology. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedy was proportionate to the failings the landlord and this investigation has identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for wardrobes and a garden shed.
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 the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £600, made up of:
1. £300 for errors in the handling of a leak.
2. £200 for continued unannounced visits to the resident’s property.
3. £100 for poor communication throughout the period of repairs and the complaint.
If the landlord has already made a payment of £250, which it offered during the complaint process, this is to be deducted from the amount ordered above.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review its repair policy, in particular the omission of a timescale for “appointable” (all non-emergency) repairs. The landlord should consider including a timescale that is in line with industry best practice and within 28 days from a repair being reported.
The landlord should consider reviewing its recordkeeping for repairs. A repair log should include information about the repair, what action the landlord has taken, and whether the repair has been completed.
This Ombudsman identified miscommunication between the landlord, resident, and contractor/developer during the investigation, which the landlord also acknowledged during the complaint process. The landlord should review its relationship with any contractor/developer to ensure communication is efficient, delays are avoided where possible, and the resident is not negatively impacted. Where delays are not avoidable, the landlord should ensure an explanation is provided to the resident.