Bromford Housing Group Limited (202216722)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216722

Bromford Housing Group Limited

19 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s over bath shower screen.
   2. The formal complaint, including its refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

3. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. The resident has told this Service that her complaint about repairs to her shower screen was that the landlord was negligent in its work, which resulted in the screen falling on her and causing injury. She has also said that she is seeking compensation for her injuries due to the landlord’s negligence.
5. Under paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Further, this Service may not consider complaints where, under paragraph 42(o), the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
6. This Service cannot make a determination on whether or not the landlord was negligent and cannot award compensation or damages for personal injury like a court is able to. As a result, in accordance with paragraphs 42(f) and 42(o) of the Scheme this part of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report. If the resident wishes to pursue this part of her complaint, she should seek independent legal advice from a solicitor or law centre regarding making a personal injury claim.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident is the assured shorthold tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
8. On 13 September 2022 the resident raised a repair with the landlord for her bath, which its notes say was reported as leaking. The landlord attended the following day, decided that the bath needed to be changed, and booked a follow-on appointment for 28 September 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence of what works were completed to this Service, but the resident has said that the bath was replaced, and this involved removing and then refitting her glass over bath shower screen.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 October 2022 to make a stage 1 complaint. It is not known whether she emailed the landlord, or used its online complaints form, as the original complaint has not been provided by the landlord, which did however provide a copy of the complaint text. In her complaint she said:
   1. The glass shower screen over her bath had fallen on her the previous day, which caused a fracture to her foot and bruising, and she had to attend hospital for treatment. She believed the screws holding the screen were either not fitted or tightened properly.
   2. The landlord had refitted her bath about 2 weeks before this, after she had called it several times and they had not repaired it.
10. On 12 October 2022 the landlord registered the complaint and acknowledged it by email and text message. It called the resident on 18 October 2022 to discuss her complaint and provided its stage 1 response by letter on 21 October 2022 in which it:
    1. Thanked the resident for speaking to it and set out her complaint, including her desired outcomes of compensation for the injury, loss of income and negligence.
    2. Said it was sorry to hear about her injuries, and that it had previously advised her to seek legal advice about making a personal injury claim, but that she wanted to pursue a complaint.
    3. Explained that personal injury was not covered by its complaints policy so it could not consider her compensation claim. It again advised her to seek independent legal advice.
    4. Said “Should you disagree with my decision and remain unhappy, you do retain the right to refer your complaint to the Housing Ombudsman for their advice and support”.
11. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to ask for its stage 2 response on 27 November 2022. The landlord replied the same day and said it had not issued a stage 2 response, as the resident “was advised to pursue her personal injury claim through the appropriate avenue as these are exempt from our complaints policy.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint including its refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process

12. The resident made her complaint on 10 October 2022 and the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day policy timeframe. It positively called the resident to discuss the complaint and provided its stage 1 response within its 10-working day timeframe.
13. Within its response the landlord set out the complaint and desired outcomes, in line with its policy. It also explained that personal injury claims cannot be considered under its policy and offered advice on making a personal injury claim as an alternative route to resolve the matter. Its decision was in line with the exclusions set out under its complaints policy, and it followed this in clearly advising the resident why it could not consider her complaint. It also advised her that she could contact this Service which was correct and set out within its policy.
14. The resident’s request to escalate her complaint has not been provided to this Service by the landlord, nor has any correspondence following this, and so the Ombudsman cannot determine how the landlord handled this request. However, it was reasonable for the landlord not to escalate the complaint as the subject was clearly excluded from its complaints process under its policy. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

15. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
16. The landlord has provided information to this Service to assist the Ombudsman’s investigation. However, the following has not been provided and this has hampered the investigation:
    1. A copy of the stage 1 complaint as made, or information on which format it was made in.
    2. Records of any telephone calls between the resident and the landlord.
    3. Evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, and its response if any. This in turn delayed the Ombudsman in confirming that she had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
    4. Evidence of the works it carried out to the bathroom on 28 September 2022. In addition, its repair records provided to this Service were lacking in detail, outcomes or completion dates making them of limited value.
17. The Ombudsman has also noticed a discrepancy within the landlord’s records relating to whether the resident has any disabilities or vulnerabilities. It has told this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but its repairs records state that she is disabled and/or vulnerable.
18. Overall, there was service failure. The landlord is ordered to pay £75 to the resident for the additional delay, time and trouble caused by the identified failings in its knowledge and information management.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint, including its refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
20. In accordance with Paragraphs 42(f) and 42(o) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the over bath shower screen is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

21. There was service failure as the landlord failed to either collect, retain, or disclose evidence and documents which would have assisted the Ombudsman’s investigation. Due to this the resident had difficulty in showing she had completed its complaints process.
22. There was no maladministration in complaints handling as the landlord followed its policy and its decision not to accept the complaint or escalate it were reasonable and in line with its policy.

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the service failure detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £75 for the delay, time and trouble caused.
    3. Contact the resident to ask whether she has any disabilities or vulnerabilities, and update its records based upon her answers. The same information is to be added or removed from all its systems so that they are accurate.
    4. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord within its stage 1 complaint response letter, when it rejects a complaint following its policy on excluded complaints, explicitly states that it will not consider the complaint at stage 2 of its process, and that the resident has completed its internal complaints process.