Bromford Housing Group Limited (202314976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314976

Bromford Housing Group Limited

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in her new home.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 2 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
The house was newly built when the resident moved in around April 2021. Between April 2021 and January 2022, the resident reported:
1. Cracked glass in a patio door causing draughts.
2. Draughty windows.
3. Her home being cold.
4. Concerns about her garden “sinking”.
The resident complained on 9 May 2022. She said she was unhappy with the repair issues at her home since moving in.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2022 which said it:
1. Had inspected the garden on 25 May 2022 and was going to level it.
2. Would insulate the loft and fit draught excluder to the loft hatch.
3. Would contact her about sound insulation after speaking with its surveyor.
The landlord sent another stage 1 response on 30 January 2023 which said:
1. It had arranged to repair the loft hatch.
2. Had checked her windows and insulation and found no faults.
3. Temperatures in her home were normal but it could install a “data logger” to monitor this.
The resident asked it to escalate her complaint because she felt nothing had been resolved. The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 5 May 2023 which said it:
1. Was sorry for the delays in dealing with her complaint which were due to a cyber incident in July 2022. It offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
2. Had increased the loft insulation in April 2022 and wall insulation in a bedroom in September 2022.
3. Was satisfied that its surveys had found no faults and would not arrange an independent survey. If she decided to have a survey done herself, it would consider the findings.
4. Was chasing up the installation of the data logger.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate because she felt her home was still too cold. She wanted the landlord to arrange an independent survey and do any repairs needed.

Assessment and findings

Handling of defect and repairs

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and outside of the house. It is also responsible for any installations and fixtures it provides.
The evidence shows the resident’s home was covered by the builder’s warranty for the first year of her tenancy. This is known as a “defects period”. During a defects period, the landlord can ask the builder to repair defects arising from a home’s construction.
This does not replace the landlord’s obligations and it remains responsible for keeping a home in repair during a defects period. We expect landlords to keep records of defects passed on to builders and to make sure that repair issues are resolved.
The landlord did not send us any evidence of its handling of the defects reported before 8 June 2022. We have relied on the resident’s account of events and correspondence exchanged between her and the landlord to establish what the landlord did before 8 June 2022.
The landlord did pass at least some defects onto the builder. For example, the builder replaced the cracked glass in the patio door and inspected the windows. The resident says the builder did not resolve the draughts which she continued to report to the landlord.
Similarly, the builder installed insulation in the bedroom wall cavity and brought additional loft insulation. The resident says this was around 3 months after she had reported her home being cold. She says she later found rolls of insulation in the loft so is not sure whether the builder had laid any during its visit.
The resident also told us that holes left in the bedroom wall when the builder installed cavity wall insulation have not been filled. As there is no evidence the wall was repaired, we have ordered the landlord to repair it.
We would have expected the landlord and/or builder to inspect the resident’s home at the end of the defects period. This is common practice to make sure defects are resolved before the builder’s warranty ends. In this case, there is no evidence that such an inspection was done.
The landlord has not evidenced that it took appropriate steps to fulfil its repairing obligations during the defects period. This is because it has not provided records of the reports it received, defects it passed to the builder or what defects were resolved and when. It appears the landlord did not resolve the defects reported by the resident during the defects period.
The defects period had ended by the time the resident complained on 9 May 2022. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to insulate the loft and internal emails show it asked a contractor for quotes on 8 June 2022. However, it is not clear from the landlord’s records if or when the work was done.
The evidence shows the resident continued to report her home being draughty and cold. The landlord did 2 inspections but we have not seen copies of any survey reports.
Internal emails suggest the first inspection, on 21 November 2022, was to check the windows, loft insulation and bathroom extractor fan. The surveyor found no faults and measured the temperature in some rooms which they said were “normal”.
The landlord’s repair records show the second inspection, on 19 December 2022, was also to check the windows and loft insulation. A note made by the landlord on 21 December 2022 says the second surveyor felt there were no issues. A later note made on 9 January 2023 says the second surveyor had checked the radiator sizes but we have seen no other evidence of this.
From the evidence seen, we cannot conclude that the landlord’s inspections adequately assessed the heat loss reported by the resident. We have ordered the landlord to have an independent survey done.
On 21 December 2022, the second surveyor suggested installing a data logger to monitor temperatures in the resident’s home. This would have been a good way for the landlord to tell how well rooms kept warm after heating was turned off.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 27 January 2023, the landlord asked the resident to let it know if she wanted it to fit a data logger. The resident asked for more information about what the logger would do. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this.
When the landlord gave its second stage 1 response on 5 May 2023 it said it was chasing up the installation of the data logger. By this time, over 4 months had passed since the surveyor had suggested installing one. It is not clear from the evidence why there was such a long delay.
Internal emails show the landlord had still not installed a data logger by 15 August 2023. The surveyor spoke with the resident and noted that she did not want one installing. The resident told us the landlord had said it would monitor temperatures for 12 months and she felt this was “an excuse to not do anything”. The landlord may have avoided the resident’s refusal if it had arranged the installation sooner.
The landlord’s final position regarding the heat loss was to tell the resident she could arrange her own independent survey. It said it would consider the findings if she did so. We do not think this was reasonable under the circumstances. This is because we are not satisfied the landlord’s inspections adequately assessed the reported heat loss and it had missed the opportunity to monitor the situation by installing a data logger.
Another defect the resident reported was her garden “sinking”. There is no evidence she reported this during the defects period. The first reference to it is when she spoke to the landlord on 16 May 2022 during the complaints process.
She told the landlord she thought the garden was unsafe. The landlord promptly arranged an inspection which shows it took her safety concerns seriously.
Emails show the landlord asked a contractor for a quote to level the garden on 8 June 2022. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it raised an order for the work or when it was done. The resident told us the work was done during the summer of 2022 which was a reasonable timescale for this type of work.
It was appropriate that the landlord did work to make the garden safe. The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to maintain her garden. The landlord’s actions show it recognised that the garden issues were not caused by her lack of maintenance.
The work done to level the garden resolved the problems for at least a year. We are satisfied the landlord dealt with the garden defect appropriately once it knew about the problem.
The resident told us the garden had started to sink again towards the end of 2023. She said that she had reported it to the landlord but we have not seen evidence of this. We have recommended that the landlord inspect the garden and deal with any safety issues.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of defects reported by the resident. This is because it has not evidenced it:
1. Took appropriate steps to fulfil its repairing obligations during the defects period.
2. Did adequate inspections to investigate the resident’s reports of heat loss.
3. Took reasonable steps to install a data logger from 21 December 2022.
4. Kept adequate records of its actions and decisions.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. She feels her home is draughty and cold and that she is spending more on heating that she should be. During winter, she does not use her bedroom because it is too cold. She feels the landlord has not taken her concerns seriously.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £600 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused.
We have also ordered the landlord to arrange an independent survey of the heat loss and to repair the bedroom wall. We have not made any orders relating to the record keeping failures identified. This is because the landlord has recently sent us its plan for improving its record keeping following an order we made in case 202208810.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
After the resident complained on 9 May 2022, the landlord logged and acknowledged it within the 5 working day timescale required by the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 9 June 2022 was late. This is because it was given 16 working days after the landlord had acknowledge the complaint. The evidence suggests the landlord may have been waiting for the outcome of the inspection it had arranged. If this was the case, the landlord should have extended its response timescale with the resident. There is no evidence it did so and this was a failing.
The stage 1 response said the landlord would contact the resident about the sound insulation of her home after it had spoken with the surveyor. There is no evidence the landlord spoke with the surveyor about this or gave a response to the resident. As such, the landlord failed to adequately address this part of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered it to do so.
We know the landlord had a cyber security incident in July 2022. It meant the landlord did not have access to most of its systems until the end of August 2022. This may explain why there are no records of the landlord’s complaint handling from 9 June 2022 until 20 October 2022 when it assigned the resident’s complaint to another officer.
The landlord’s records suggest it may have been in contact with the resident between 20 October 2022 and 21 November 2022. We have not seen details of any telephone conversations or copies of emails which appear to have been exchanged. The records show the landlord was aware the resident thought the matters she had complained about were not resolved.
It is not clear why the landlord sent another stage 1 response on 27 January 2023. The Code says a complaint should be escalated if a resident considers it has not been resolved at stage 1. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to consider escalating the complaint from 10 October 2022. It was inappropriate that it sent another stage 1 response.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint until after the resident emailed on 30 January 2023 asking it to do so. It should have escalated the complaint sooner.
The Code allows landlords to extend the timescale for responding to a complaint in exceptional circumstances. The Code at the time (published in March 2022) said landlords could extend the response timescale by up to 10 days and should explain the need for an extension. The Code said that if an extension beyond 10 working days was needed, it should be agreed with the resident.
In this case the landlord extended the timescale for its stage 2 response by 10 days in an email it sent to the resident on 28 February 2023. This extension was in line with the Code.
However, the landlord failed to give a stage 2 response by the extended date it had given (17 March 2023). There is no evidence the landlord agreed a further extension with the resident.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 5 May 2023. This means it was 33 working days later than the landlord had promised. In its response, it said the delays had been caused by the cyber incident in July 2022. There is no evidence the cyber incident had affected the landlord’s complaint handling after the end of August 2022. As such, we think the landlord’s explanation was not accurate.
It is not clear from the evidence seen why it had taken the landlord over 6 months (from 20 October 2022 to 5 May 2023) to escalate the complaint and give a final response. The time taken was inappropriate and may have delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.
It was also inappropriate that the stage 2 response said the resident could contact a “designated person” if she was unsatisfied. This advice was not in line with the Code at the time. The Code from March 2022 said that residents can bring a complaint to us as soon as it has completed the landlord’s process.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it:
1. Did not follow up on its commitment to contact the resident about the sound insulation of her home.
2. Took far too long to escalate the resident’s complaint and give a stage 2 response. It also gave an inaccurate explanation of reasons for the delay.
3. Gave information that was not in line with the Code in its stage 2 response.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. It was inconvenient to have to chase the landlord to progress her complaint. She was frustrated when the landlord did not return her calls.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failings. We do not think this is enough to reflect the failings we have identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of defects in her new home.
2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £900. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of defects.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £150 it offered in its stage 2 response if it can evidence it has already paid it.
2. Write to the resident to confirm its position regarding the sound insulation of her home. This should include setting out the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s concerns and details of investigations it has done. The landlord should explain any work it intends to do and give the timescales it will work to. It should explain its reasons if it decides no work is needed. The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
1. Provide the resident and us with a copy of a survey report that shows an independent and suitably qualified person has assessed heat loss at the resident’s home. The survey must include (but is not limited to):
  1. Testing walls, windows and doors and upstairs ceilings for heat loss.
  2. Identifying the points where heat is being lost and assessing whether this is due to a building defect or repair issue.
  3. Recommending how any defects or repair issues can be resolved to reduce heat loss.
2. Repair the holes in the bedroom wall including making good to the decorations.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to confirm its position following the findings of the survey ordered in paragraph 58. It must explain any work it intends to do and give the timescales it will work to. It should explain its reasons if it decides no work is needed. The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord inspect the resident’s garden. It should deal with any safety issues it finds.