Bromford Housing Group Limited (202301992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301992

Bromford Housing Group Limited

22 November 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 the resident’s:
   1. Concerns after a leak at the property.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the shared-owner of the property which is part-owned by the landlord. She pays the landlord rent. The lease states that the landlord will provide buildings insurance for leaseholders and recoup the cost through a monthly charge.
3. On 18 January 2023, while she was abroad, the resident received a call from a neighbour advising that a leak had affected the property. She called the landlord and asked for advice on what to do. A call handler said the landlord did not provide help of that sort, but she could find advice on its website. When the resident called again the following week, the landlord advised that it had no record of her earlier call. She also contacted the insurer which said it would cover the cost of any damage.
4. The resident submitted a complaint on 24 January 2023, saying she was disappointed with the landlord’s handling of her concerns and its failure to provide advice on a situation she had never faced before. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 February 2023, it said it did have a record of the first call but the call handler had not entered the details of the call on the system. It said that it did not provide information about emergencies to leaseholders. However, it apologised for poor service and the distress this caused.
5. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 21 February 2023, saying that the landlord had given her false information and challenged her integrity. She wanted the landlord to introduce various improvements to its systems and asked for compensation for time and worry spent contacting it and sourcing drying equipment.
6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 March 2023. It accepted that it had provided a poor service to the resident. It said it would learn lessons from the events and offered her £350 compensation for its failures (£50 for complaint handling failures, £50 for its failure to record the details of her initial call and £250 for its failure to support her fully).
7. The resident was not satisfied with this response and came to this Service. She said she had been caused a great deal of stress by the landlord’s failures. She wanted more staff training and compensation.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns after a leak at the property

8. The landlord accepts that it failed to record details of the conversation its operative held with the resident on 18 January 2023 as it should have done. The resident says the call handler told her that it was not the landlord’s role to deal with leaks for a leaseholder and that her buildings insurance provided through the landlord would only cover the exterior of the building. They also told her that the landlord’s website held all the information that she wanted. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Service has no reason to question the resident’s account of the conversation.
9. The resident said, in her complaint to the landlord, that this response left her “seriously distressed and confused”. She said she had never been through this experience before, she needed reassurance, and it was poor customer care to direct her to a website. She said no one offered her help with temporary accommodation or with her electrics, which were out of service for a week. She had to hire dehumidifying equipment and organise repairs and she asked for information about her insurance policy details.
10. It is understandable that the resident felt distressed by the landlord’s somewhat insensitive and unhelpful response. Further, the information it provided about the insurance was incorrect. The insurer confirmed, when the resident contacted it a week later, that she was covered and could make a claim. This was a failure on the landlord’s part.
11. However, the landlord was correct in stating that, as a leaseholder, the resident could not expect it to deal with the leak for her. In accordance with the lease terms, the resident was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property and for repairs. While the resident may not have felt inclined to consult a website for advice at the time of her initial enquiry, this was an appropriate response by the landlord. It ensured the resident was made aware of the information available to her and where to access it, which is all it could reasonably be expected to do in the circumstances.
12. The resident submits that she had to hire dehumidifiers, heaters and blowers to prevent further damage to the property. While understandably frustrating that she felt it necessary to incur these costs, they cannot be attributed to any failing on the part of the landlord. The resident would have been in the same position, and responsible for these costs, even if the landlord had provided her with correct information.
13. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the failure to record the details of the 18 January 2023 call and said it would learn lessons and provide a better service in future, which was appropriate. However, it did not go far enough to recognise the distress caused to the resident by its actions. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that a compensation payment should have been considered at this stage.
14. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will offer discretionary “sorry awards” for poor service. The amount offered will depend on the severity and duration of the mistake and the distress caused. The level should not generally exceed £500.
15. Once the complaint was escalated to stage 2, the landlord took the opportunity to fully review its response and ultimately offered £300 compensation in relation to the substantive issue, with £50 for its failure to record the details of the 18 January call and £250 for its “failure to fully support [her] throughout the process”. It also apologised again and repeated that it would learn lessons from its errors. This was an appropriate response to her concerns which reflected both its own compensation procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
16. Together, the compensation offer and the apology appropriately recognised the detriment caused to the resident. The landlord has also provided evidence to this Service that it has taken steps to prevent similar errors in future. It has simplified its case management systems to make it easier to record data and provided its call-handlers with extensive call-handling training. It says it is happy to share information about this training with the resident and that it will continue to work to improve performance. This demonstrates that the landlord has taken the complaint seriously and used it as an opportunity to learn and improve, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
17. Overall, the landlord has provided a remedy which appropriately recognised the distress suffered and complied with the resident’s request to see service improvements and receive proportionate compensation. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord has made reasonable redress to the resident. 

The associated formal complaint

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. In this case, the resident complained on 24 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 February 2023, 14 working days later. It then provided its stage 1 response on 16 February 2023. Therefore, both the stage 1 acknowledgement and response were issued outside of the landlord’s published timescales, which represents a failure in service.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Following the resident’s escalation request on 21 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2023, in line with its target timescales.
20. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged that its handling of the stage 1 complaint had been delayed and it appropriately apologised for this and offered £50 compensation (£25 for the late acknowledgement and £25 for the late complaint response). This demonstrated that it took the opportunity of the complaints process to openly acknowledge areas for improvement and take action to rectify the identified failings.
21. On the evidence, by the time the resident complained, the substantive issues had been resolved, so the impact of any minor delay was modest. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and therefore amounted to reasonable redress for its failure and the impact this had.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns after a leak at the property.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Recommendation.

23. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £350 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.