Bromford Housing Group Limited (202311117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311117

Bromford Housing Group Limited

26 February 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 a roof replacement and its request that the resident paid a contribution towards this.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was a leaseholder of the property between 25 January 2019 and 2 August 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has no vulnerabilities and the landlord’s records reflect this.
4. On 28 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to tell her that the roof of the property needed to be replaced due to its age. It said that:
   1. Under the terms of her lease, she was required to contribute towards this. It estimated that her contribution would be £10,074.44 including VAT and management charge.
   2. As the work would cost more than £250 it was consulting her under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It enclosed a notice of intention and estimates for the work.
   3. She had 30 days to respond to the consultation. It signposted her to an organisation that could offer her advice regarding this.
5. The resident responded on 2 and 4 May 2023. She said that she was concerned about affordability and asked if the landlord would consider buying the property from her or waiving the fee.
6. The landlord responded on 5 May 2023. It said that it could support her with different payment options and would consider buying back the property. The resident sent 4 further emails with questions between 7 and 18 May 2023. The landlord responded to these within reasonable timescales and provided a repair history of the block and a breakdown of the quotation as requested. It explained that the roof had reached the end of its lifecycle.
7. The resident complained on 21 May 2023. She said that the landlords request for her to pay £10,000 was unreasonable. She asked it to justify why the work was necessary, why it needed to replace the whole roof, and for evidence that it had maintained the roof adequately over its lifespan. She indicated that she was aware that she could challenge the demand by making an application to the first-tier tribunal.
8. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 May 2023 and responded on 5 June 2023. It said:
   1. It had repaired the roof as needed throughout its 30-year lifespan.
   2. It had served a section 20 notice as required and responded promptly to the resident’s queries regarding this.
   3. Her lease stated that she should contribute to works such as a roof replacement. However, she could take legal advice regarding this.
   4. It understood her frustration and emotions regarding the situation but it did not uphold her complaint.
9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 5 June 2023. The landlord told the resident that it would provide a full response by 16 June 2023. On 16 June 2023 it told her it would respond by 20 June 2023. The resident emailed the landlord to chase the response on 27 June 2023 and then contacted us for help. We emailed the landlord on 11 August 2023 and asked it to respond to the stage 2 escalation by 18 August 2023. The landlord agreed an extension with the resident to 1 September 2023.
10. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 1 September 2023. It explained that the roof was 67 years old and beyond repair. Any temporary repairs would require scaffolding which would cost £1,000 to £2,000 per elevation. These repairs would not last and therefore it was more cost effective to replace the roof. It concluded that:
    1. It had failed to address all her concerns in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. It had failed to progress her complaint to stage 2 when asked to do so.
    3. It had considered buying back the property but was unable to do so.
    4. She still remained liable for the cost of the roof. However, it would cap the management charge to £250.
    5. It would offer compensation of £100 comprising:
       1. £25 for its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process.
       2. £50 for its failure to answer the stage 1 complaint fully.
       3. £25 for its failure to provide a follow up response.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to us for investigation. An internal landlord email dated 16 April 2024 indicated that it had replaced the roof and had also limited the total recovery of the costs from the resident to £250.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact of the situation on her mental health. We do not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the situation and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to take legal advice.
13. The Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which concern matters which would be more effectively dealt with by the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Where there is a dispute about whether a landlord has carried out work that has provided value for money or there are concerns about the necessity of works, the matter can be referred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination. This service will, however, consider the landlords management of the resident’s queries regarding this.

Roof

14. Paragraph 1(iii) of the lease for the property states that the resident is liable to pay the landlord a proportion of the costs incurred by it to repair the main structure of the block, including the roof.
15. The landlord consulted with the resident regarding its intention to replace the roof and provided an estimate for this. It signposted her to the leasehold advisory service for independent advice, which was appropriate. The landlord responded to all the resident’s queries in a timely manner and provided the information she requested.
16. The resident said that the roof only needed to be replaced because the landlord had not maintained it properly. In response it provided evidence of the repairs it had carried out over the previous 20 years. It also told her that the roof was 67 years old and therefore past the normal lifespan of a roof, which it estimated to be 30 years. It pointed out that each time it repaired the roof there were associated costs such as scaffolding, which would be recharged to the leaseholder. Therefore, it did not consider that it was cost effective to repair the roof. We consider that all the responses given by the landlord to the resident’s concerns were appropriate in the circumstances.
17. Throughout the landlord’s communication with the resident, it showed empathy with her situation. When the resident indicated that the cost of the roof was unaffordable, it offered to assess her finances so that it could arrange an affordable payment plan for her. It considered buying back the property and communicated its decision to her. It also offered to reduce the management cost to £250. These were reasonable actions to take in the circumstances.
18. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately and responded to the residents concerns in a timely manner, it showed empathy with her situation and offered potential solutions to try to help her. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof replacement and its request for the resident to pay towards the cost.

Complaint handling

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond fully within 20 working days of the escalation. If this is not possible it will provide an explanation and confirm an alternative date.
20. The landlord acknowledged that it had received the resident’s email which indicated that she was not happy with its response to the stage 1 complaint. However, it did not provide a response within 20 working days. The resident had to contact us for assistance which cost her time and trouble.
21. However, the landlord apologised for this error and offered £25 compensation for its failure to escalate the complaint and a further £25 for not responding to her email. Therefore, we consider that it offered reasonable redress for this complaint handling failure at stage 2 of the complaints process. We have made a recommendation for it to pay this compensation if it has not already done so.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof replacement and its request for the resident to pay towards this.
23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failure in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

24. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.