From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202234462)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234462

Bromford Housing Group Limited

21 May 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. Repairs to the shower in the property.
    2. The resident’s request for compensation for personal losses.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom property under an assured tenancy agreement dated 2018. The landlord records that the resident has a mental health condition.
  2. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 10 October 2022 in which she said she had reported a faulty shower pump to an engineer in February 2022, but she had heard nothing further. She paid rent for 4 rooms but only had the use of 3 rooms. She had travelled to visit her daughter to wash each week, which affected her wellbeing and her finances. She wanted the landlord to repair the shower and reimburse 25% of the rent she had paid in addition to paying for her travel costs.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 October 2022. It sent a stage 1 response to her on 21 October 2022 in which it acknowledged and apologised for the impact its repairs handling failings had on the resident. It summarised its response to the shower repairs, recognised its delays, and it said it would follow this up with the relevant staff. It offered the resident £50 as compensation for missed appointments and inconvenience. It also said that it needed to understand the cause of the shower fault and the repair delays before it could address her reimbursement requests.
  4. The landlord sent a ‘follow up’ stage 1 response to the resident on 14 March 2023 in which it apologised its delay in responding to the complaint which was due to the amount of compensation she had asked for. It offered the resident £553.46 as compensation which it calculated at 20% of the rent paid for 244 days when the resident was without a shower. It offered her a further £100 as compensation for its delay in responding to the compensation request. The landlord said it was curious why she had not chased the repair between February and October 2022 given the physical and emotional impact it caused her. Further, it said that she had missed 2 emergency appointments it had arranged in October 2022. The landlord acknowledged her request to reimburse £4,362 for travel costs and the impact this had on the resident. It said it would not compensate her for these costs without further evidence of her expenditure. It asked her to evidence of this spend for it to review this further.
  5. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 29 March 2023. She said the landlord could not close a complaint that it had not resolved and that a staff member moving to a different department was not a reason to close a complaint. She said it had provided 11 days to accept its compensation offer which was a short time frame and unprofessional given it had taken 7 weeks to reply to her complaint. She rejected the landlord’s resolution offer asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 31 March 2023, and it sent a stage 2 response to her on 12 July 2023. It summarised its handling of the shower repair between 1 March 2022 and 3 November 2022. It recognised that it had not acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its procedures. It restated how it had calculated its compensation offer which it said was reasonable and an acceptable resolution to the complaint. It restated that it had allowed the resident up to 6 months to respond to its offer and said it had been unable to find any further failings in its handling of the stage 1 complaint. Additionally, the landlord recognised that it may have pressurised the resident to consider its compensation offer. It acknowledged its delay in handling the stage 2 escalation request and a series of communication issues for which it apologised. It said it needed to see evidence of the resident’s incurred costs to support her claim for their reimbursement. Further that this request was outside of its complaint procedures, and it would need to pass it to its insurance team to review. It provided a claim form for the resident to complete and return. The landlord offered the resident a further £520 in addition to its earlier offer, totalling £1,173.46 which it itemised as:
    1. £100 for missed or failed appointments.
    2. £20 for its delayed acknowledgment of the stage 1 complaint.
    3. £100 for its lack of communication.
    4. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
    5. £200 for its complaint handling delays at stage 2.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman about the landlord’s delay in repairing the shower and the impact this had on her wellbeing and travel costs. To put things right she said the landlord should have provided her with compensation for a loss of facilities, the expenses she had incurred, and for distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file.
  2. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we have given consideration to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Repairs to the shower in the property

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water and for sanitations. The landlord must also complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, and fixtures of the property in good repair.
  2. The resident reported a faulty shower to the landlord’s operative on 28 February 2022. The operative confirmed that he would arrange for someone to repair the shower. However, there is no evidence that the landlord progressed the repair. This caused time and trouble to the resident in raising the repair with the landlord again on 7 October 2022.
  3. The landlord completed the shower repair on 3 November 2022, 248 days after the resident had first reported it. This was not in keeping with its repairs policy. The repairs policy says it will complete a repair the next day if it poses a reduced risk or inconvenience to a resident if left unattended for more than 2 days.
  4. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience its handling of the repair may have caused to her. Furthermore it offered to reimburse her £553.46 of the rent she had paid while the shower was faulty and £100 for missed, or failed appointments. The property contained 4 rooms, and the landlord explained that it had calculated its offer at 20 percent of the rent she had paid for 244 days while she was without a working shower.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy says it would consider paying compensation where rooms or amenities provided to residents are not available for use. It was therefore reasonable for it use the rent contribution to calculate an offer. However it missed the opportunity to explain how or why it had used 20 percent as a basis for its compensation calculation. Furthermore, it incorrectly calculated the award based upon the resident being without a shower for 244 instead of 248 days between 28 February and 3 November 2022. Consequently, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and reimburse her appropriately.
  6. The landlord apologised for its communication failings in its final complaint response of 12 July 2023, and it offered the resident a further £100 as compensation for this. In addition to compensation for its poor communication the landlord also offered the resident £100 for any distress and inconvenience its handling of the repairs may have caused her. The landlord’s final stage 2 compensation offer for its handling of the shower repair totalled £853.46.
  7. When a landlord has acknowledged failings, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress it offered had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £300 as compensation for time, trouble, inconvenience, and distress associated with its handling of the shower repair and poor communication. Additionally it offered to reimburse her £553.46 as rent paid while she had been without an operational shower. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have taken 248 days to complete the repairs. Additionally, the landlord incorrectly calculated its reimbursement of rent at 244 days instead of 248 days. Consequently we have found maladministration in its handling of the shower repair.
  9. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £75 to make up the shortfall in its own calculations.
  10. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its record keeping and handling of knowledge of information practises, processes, and procedures as a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme. The landlord is in compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any further orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord.

Compensation request for personal losses

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 to request  compensation for the expenses she had incurred while she had been without a working shower. The landlord requested further information about her expenses in an email it sent to her 5 days later. On 26 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested:
    1. £1,200 as compensation for personal injury including mental health, stress, and inconvenience.
    2. £4,362 to cover her fuel costs and time while travelling between her property and/or place of work and her daughter’s home to bathe.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s compensation request in its ‘follow on’ stage 1 response of 14 March 2023. It said that it would not compensate her for her travel costs without evidence of this expenditure. It did not advise whether it would respond to her request for £1,200 for personal injury. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer on 29 March 2023 and asked it to review it at stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
  3. The landlord reviewed its compensation award in its final response on 12 July 2023. It restated how it had calculated its offer and said that it was reasonable and an acceptable resolution to the complaint. Furthermore, it restated that it would consider her request for the reimbursement of personal expenditure if she submitted evidence of her spend. It advised her that it would forward her refund request to its insurance company.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it would refer any request for compensation for personal injury and/or where awards have a likely value of more than £5,000 to its insurance team. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to provide this advice to the resident. However, it failed to do so until it sent its final response 115 working days after she had submitted her compensation claim.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to consider the resident’s refund request along with any receipts of expenditure she provided. Its request for receipts was reasonable and its advice that its insurance team could consider the resident’s reimbursement request was in keeping with its compensation policy. Furthermore, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of its claim form which was right under the circumstances. However, it should have told the resident that it would forward her compensation request to its insurance claim and explain the evidence it required sooner, such as in its stage 1 response. Consequently we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for personal losses.
  6. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 as compensation. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance which suggests a range of awards for matters, like here, where we have found failings that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but were likely to have caused her time, trouble, and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint. This says that a landlord should acknowledge and log a complaint within 5 days of receipt.
    2. Said that it had completed the shower repair on 30 October 2022 when it did not do so until 3 November 2022. Consequently it said that she had been without a shower for 244 days instead of 248 days and it calculated its compensation offer incorrectly.
    3. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Code. This says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    4. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 29 March 2023 until 12 July 2023. This was 51 working days later that its 20 working-day complaint policy response target.
    5. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
  2. In her stage 2 complaint the resident said that the timeframe provided for her to consider its compensation award was short and an attempt to get her to accept its offer. The landlord addressed this in its final response in which it recognised that it may have pressurised the resident to consider its compensation offer. This was unreasonable. Furthermore, its explanation in its final response, considering its own delay in responding to the complaint, was insensitive to the resident’s expressed concerns.
  3. The landlord apologised to the resident, and it offered her £320 as compensation for its complaint handling failings. It was reasonable for the landlord to do so in keeping with its compensation policy which says it would consider the extent and impact of any service failure when making an award.
  4. The landlord’s level of compensation is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases such as this where a landlord has acknowledged failings and looked to put things right. However, the offer was not proportionate to the likely impact of the failings found by our investigation. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 for the time and trouble that she incurred in pursuing the matter via its complaint procedure. Additionally we have asked it to write to her to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of shower repairs in the property.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for personal losses.
    3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the shower repairs in the property and the resident’s complaint.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,173.46 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an added £275 in compensation made up as follows:
      1. £75 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of shower repairs may have caused to the resident.
      2. £100 for time and trouble incurred to the resident in pursuing the reimbursement of expenses she had incurred while she was without a shower.
      3. £100 for any time and trouble that the resident may have incurred in pursuing the matter via the landlord’s complaint procedure.
    4. Provide advice and assist the resident with an insurance claim to recover the costs she had incurred while she had been without a working shower if a claim has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.