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

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202222666)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222666

Bromford Housing Group Limited

15 January 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 landlords handling of subsidence affecting the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, he resides in a one bedroom ground floor property. The resident suffers with various physical and mental health conditions including COPD, anxiety and depression. He is supported by his daughter who for the purpose of this report will also be referred to as the resident.
  2. The resident has informed this service that concerns regarding cracks on the internal and external living room wall were first reported in July 2021. The resident states that the landlord failed to attend scheduled appointments in September and November 2021. The landlord’s records from this period are no longer available, however, the evidence confirms that a surveyor attended on 12 November 2021 and concluded that a specialist contractor would need to be appointed for suspected subsidence.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on several occasions throughout January and February 2022. However, he reported that due to the anxiety the situation was causing he refrained from reporting again until August 2022.
  4. On 17 August 2022 the landlord attended to assess the cracks in the walls. The resident contacted the landlord the following day to request an update, but it was initially unable to clarify who had attended or find any notes. This resulted in the resident raising a complaint.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 25 August 2022 in which it confirmed that a survey had been carried out and that it would continue to monitor to ensure that works are completed. The evidence shows that the resident received no further updates and continued to chase the landlord.
  6. A further specialist survey was carried out on 26 August 2022. The report was provided to the landlord towards the end of October 2022. It confirmed subsidence and contained detailed images of significant cracks internally and externally ranging from 6mm in width to 15mm. Due to the extent of the proposed works the matter was passed to the landlord’s insurance department resulting in further delays.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord again in February 2023 frustrated at the lack of progress. He explained that the gaps in the walls were now causing damp, exacerbating his lung conditions. He requested an escalation of his complaint, however, this was incorrectly logged at the time and the formal escalation was not raised until 14 April 2023.
  8. The landlord confirmed that the resident would need to be decanted for the works to be carried out. This was originally booked for 20 March 2023, however, the resident’s family were unable to facilitate the move on this date due to prior commitments. The work was cancelled and rescheduled for 28 May 2023.
  9. The landlord provided its stage two response on 22 May 2023 in which it apologised for the delay in escalation. It also recognised that the initial stage one response was not robust, nor did it appropriately address or try to resolve the issue. The landlord identified several failures contributing to the ‘unacceptable delay’. In resolution it offered compensation totalling £1900, broken down as follows: –
    1. £100 for its complaint handling at stage one.
    2. £50 for its failure to escalate to stage two.
    3. £25 for the delay in issuing the stage two response.
    4. £850 for exceeding the 90 day repair timescale (January 2022 – May 2023 – 17 months x £50)
    5. £850 Fuel allowance for loss of heating (17 months x £50)
  10. The resident refused the offer of compensation as he felt that the elements relating to the repair were not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, as a result he escalated the matter to the Ombudsman.
  11. The resident was decanted on 28 May 2023 while the work on the subsidence was completed, he returned to the property 3 weeks later on the 16 June 2023.

Scope of investigation

  1. Since escalating his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has expressed further concerns. However, in the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the residents’ recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these additional concerns, if he has not already done so, and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if he is dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.
  2. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the impact these delays have had on his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the residents health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of a customer’s home. It goes on to state that repairs will fall into one of four categories:- emergency responsive repairs, routine responsive repairs, small scale maintenance or high value repairs. Given the scope of the works required it would be reasonable to assume that this issue would be dealt with as a high value repair. The landlord’s policy does not give timescales for such a repair, which is not unreasonable given the complexity.
  2. The landlord was initially alerted to the presence of cracks in the summer of 2021, at this stage it would have been appropriate to categorise the issue as a routine responsive repair to determine the cause. The landlord’s policy states that a routine repair will be attended within 20 working days. In the absence of the landlords’ records from this period we are unable to determine how it was categorised, however, the evidence shows that it did not attend until 12 November 2021, outside of the target for all repair categorisations. Following this visit the landlord failed to escalate the matter or raise any further repairs.
  3. After chasing for updates during January and February 2022 there is a substantial gap in the residents reporting of the issue. The resident has stated that this was due to the frustration he was experiencing at the lack of action and the distress that this was causing him. During this period there is no evidence to show that the landlord made any proactive attempts to contact the resident or move the matter along, despite the survey in November highlighting possible subsidence. This was a failure in the landlords’ obligations and contributed to the unreasonable delays.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint in August 2022 two further surveys were carried out, however, the landlord failed again to progress the issue. At this stage the landlord was aware of the scope of the works required and the severity of the cracks as it was all detailed in the specialist survey report.
  5. The failure to resolve the issue in a timely manner also resulted in the resident struggling to keep his home sufficiently heated leading to further issues with damp and mould. The landlord did, however, attempt to put things right by offering £850 compensation towards the energy costs incurred by the resident and arranging for a damp and mould inspection.
  6. Throughout the duration of the repair the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident, significant periods of time passed between each visit and the resident was not provided with any updates or timescales despite requesting them. This lack of communication resulted in further inconvenience and distress to the resident and only improved after the complaint was escalated to stage two.
  7. In addition, the evidence shows that the landlord’s record keeping was poor. There was a distinct lack of ownership and recording of data which was appropriately highlighted by the case manager during the stage two investigation.
  8. From the evidence provided the landlord was aware of the residents physical and mental vulnerabilities, however, they are not adequately recorded on the tenant’s information file. It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence that the distress caused by the living conditions and the significant time and trouble spent chasing the repairs had a detrimental impact upon the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the equality act, and it has confirmed that a risk assessment was not carried out. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities this would have been an appropriate step to take when managing this case and considering what reasonable adjustments could be made prior to the decant.
  9. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  10. In this case the landlord recognised multiple failures and addressed each significant event appropriately within its stage two response. It highlighted several areas of improvement, including communication and record keeping. In addition, the landlord demonstrated learning by confirming that its final response and case notes would be used to provide internal coaching and feedback. It is not disputed that the landlord took 18 months to begin the remedial works on the property, which, despite the structural nature of the defect was a substantial amount of time for a vulnerable resident. However, in resolution of the complaint and in recognition of these failures and the detriment caused to the resident, the landlords offer of compensation was proportionate and fair.

 

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of structural cracks.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, it is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £1900 it has offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the subsidence.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.

KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)